High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/20663/2018disposed of

Bhanwar Singh And ANR v. State Of Haryana And ORS

2019-01-23Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi3 pages

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision: - 23.01.2019 Bhanwar Singh and another ....Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present:- Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the applicants-petitioners.

Mr. Charanjit Singh Bakhshi, Addl. A.G., Haryana. **** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL) CM-498-CWP-2019 Present application has been filed for the preponement of the date of hearing of the present writ petition. Counsel for the applicants-petitioners prays that in somewhat similar circumstances, this Court has already disposed of writ petition being CWP No.37897 of 2018 and the applicants-petitioners states that they will be satisfied in case, the same order is passed in the present writ petition as well.

Notice of application to the counsel for nonapplicants/respondents.

-2Mr. Charanjit Singh Bakhshi, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice of the application on behalf of the State and he has no objection for preponement of date of hearing of the present case. In view of above, the present application is allowed and the hearing of the main writ petition is preponed for today. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners claiming the re-fixation of their salary in view of the order passed by this Court in CWP No.4518 of 2000, which order has been upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Counsel for the petitioners states that similarly situated persons have been given the benefit of the said judgment, but the leave has not been given to the petitioners on the ground that there is no order in their favour passed by the competent Court of Law for the consideration in their cases.

Counsel for the petitioners further states that the representation, which the petitioners have filed for the grant of the same, had been rejected only on the ground that they were not the party before the Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, the benefit of the said order cannot be extended to them unless and until there is a direction which is given to consider their cases.

Counsel for the petitioners further states that consideration has not been done on merits with regard to entitlement of the petitioners in view of order passed by this Court in CWP No.4518 of 2000.

-3Counsel for the respondents states that consideration of the cases of the petitioners in respect of the grant of benefit to them will be done on merits and he assures that representations (Annexure P-7 {Colly.}), which the petitioners had filed, will be decided on merits, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

In view of the above statement made, counsel for the petitioners does not want to press the present writ petition any further. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of, as not pressed.

Let the appropriate order be passed on the claim of the petitioners as submitted by them in their representations (Annexure P-7 {Colly.}), within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order as undertaken by the counsel for the respondents.

( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI ) January 23, 2019 JUDGE naresh.k Whether reasoned/speaking?

Yes Whether reportable?