S N Yadav And ANR v. Union Of India And Others

CWP-26975-2016 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-26975-2016 (O&M) Date of decision: - 10.02.2020 S.N. Yadav and another ....Petitioners

Versus

Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present:- Ms. Geeta Rani, Advocate and Mr. Randhir Singh, Advocate for Mr. Pawan Kumar Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for the respondents-UOI.

**** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL) In the present writ petition, the grievance which is being raised by the petitioners is that the benefit of ACP Scheme (first upgradation after 12 years and second upgradation after 24 years), has not been granted to them during their service career though they were fully eligible for the same.

During the pendency of the writ petition, keeping in view the order passed by this Court on 20.12.2017, respondents have considered the case of the petitioners once again and have passed an order dated 05.02.2018 whereby the benefit of upgradation after 12 years has been allowed in favour of the petitioners, but the second upgradation after 24 years of service has been rejected.

NARESH KUMAR 2020.02.13 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CWP-26975-2016 (O&M) -2Learned counsel for the petitioners prays that petitioners be allowed to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file fresh one on the same cause of action by impugning order dated 05.02.2018 which has been passed during the pendency of the writ petition, deciding the claim of the petitioners.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents raises no objection for the grant of the said prayer. Dismissed as withdrawn, with the liberty, as prayed for. ( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI ) February 10, 2020 JUDGE naresh.k Whether reasoned/speaking?

No Whether reportable?

No NARESH KUMAR 2020.02.13 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh