Lal Singh And ORS v. State Of Haryana And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.: 105 Civil Writ Petition No.17368 of 2024 (O & M) Date of Decision: August 22, 2024 Lal Singh & others ..... PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

State of Haryana & others ..... RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA PRESENT: - Mr. Sourabh Sheoran, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

Tribhuvan Dahiya, J (Oral) CM No.13424-CWP of 2024 For the reasons stated, the application is allowed. Amended Memo of Parties is taken on record.

Main case The petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to re-fix the petitioners' pension by granting them benefit of annual increment in the last year of retirement. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have completed one year satisfactory service prior to their retirement, and became entitled to one annual increment on that basis. The law in this regard stands settled by the Supreme Court in The Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL and others v. C.P. Mundinamani and others, 2023 SCC Online SC 401, and this Court in CWP No.8364 of 2024, titled Suresh Kumar Singla and others v. State of Haryana & others, decided on 16.04.2024. He AVIN KUMAR 2024.08.23 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order.

CWP No.17368 of 2024 [2] further contends that at this stage, the petitioners will be satisfied in case they are permitted to make fresh representation(s) before the concerned respondent(s) raising the grievance as has been raised in this petition, and the same may be ordered to be decided within a specified period in terms of the aforementioned settled law.

3.

Notice of motion.

4.

Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and submits that in case any representation is filed by the petitioners within three weeks from today, the same will be decided by the concerned respondent nos.5 an 6, as the case may be, keeping in view the law laid down in C.P. Mundinamani case (supra) and Suresh Kumar Singla case (supra), by passing a speaking order thereupon within three months of receiving the representation. 5.

In view of the statement made, learned counsel for the petitioners has no objection to the petition being disposed of in terms thereof. 6.

Ordered accordingly.

(Tribhuvan Dahiya) Judge August 22, 2024 avin Whether Speaking/ Reasoned:

Yes/ No Whether Reportable:

Yes/ No AVIN KUMAR 2024.08.23 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order.