Kuldeep Singh And ORS v. State Of Punjab And ORS

CWP No.18897 of 2020 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.18897 of 2020 (O&M) Date of Decision.24.03.2022 Kuldeep Singh and others

...Petitioners

Vs State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:

Mr. Pardeep K. Kapila, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Pawan Sharda, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

-.- JAISHREE THAKUR J. (ORAL) 1.

By way of instant writ petition, petitioners are seeking direction to be issued to the respondents to grant the seniority as per merit in the batch, pay fixation, arrears of salary, allowances and notional consequential benefits along with interest @15% per annum in terms of judgment passed by this High Court in CWP No.21716 of 2013 titled as Sukhwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 27.02.2016. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners herein would contend that the petitioners had joined as Constable in District Cadre Bathinda in the year 2012 but till date, they have not been granted seniority and other monetary benefits at par with other candidates, who were issued appointment in 2012, despite the fact that case of the petitioners is duly covered with the judgment rendered by this High Court in Sukhwinder Singh's case (supra) as well as judgments rendered in CWP No.14769 of 2019 titled as Vir Vishal and another Vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 29.05.2019 and CWP No.18025 of 2019 titled as Ashok Kumar PANKAJ KUMAR 2022.03.31 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP No.18897 of 2020 (O&M) -2Vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 08.07.2019. It is further contended that petitioners have also sent a legal notice dated 04.02.2020 (Annexure P-12) ventilating their grievance to respondent No.2, however, till date no action has been taken thereon. It is submitted that the petitioners would be satisfied in case the aforesaid legal notice is considered and decided by respondent No.2 within a stipulated time by passing a speaking order.

3.

Mr. Pawan Sharda, Sr. DAG, Punjab, appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that the respondents have no objection to the limited prayer made by the petitioners. He further submits that respondent No.2 will look into the matter and will take a decision on legal notice given by the petitioners in accordance with law.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper book. Keeping in view the limited prayer made by the counsel for the petitioners for deciding legal notice submitted by petitioners to respondent No.2 and without going into merits of the case, I dispose of the instant petition by directing respondent No.2 to take a decision on the legal notice (Annexures P-12) of the petitioners in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the officer responsible for the lapse would be liable to deposit costs of Rs.20,000/- from his personal pocket with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Advocates Welfare Fund.

(JAISHREE THAKUR) JUDGE March 24, 2022 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2022.03.31 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document