Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd And ANR v. Inder Pal Singh

LPA No.1073 of 2015 and a connected case [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH 1.

LPA No. 1073 of 2015(O&M) Date of Decision: February 2 , 2016.

Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd. and others ...... APPELLANT(s)

Versus

Inder Pal Singh ...... RESPONDENT (s) 2.

LPA No. 1135 of 2015(O&M).

Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd. and others ...... APPELLANT(s)

Versus

Karan Singh ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present:

Mr. Ashok S.Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate and Mr. S.S.Kharb, Advocate for the respondents.

*****

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reports or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ***** RAJIVE BHALLA, J.

By way of this order, we shall dispose of LPA No.1073 of 2015 OMKAR SINGH 2016.02.08 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

LPA No.1073 of 2015 and a connected case [2] (Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited and others v. Inder Pal Singh) and LPA No.1135 of 2015 (Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited and others v. Karan Singh) as they involve the same questions of law and facts.

The appellants challenge order dated 13.10.2014 whereby the writ petitions filed by the respondents were allowed as counsel for the parties agreed that controversy in the writ petitions is covered against the appellants by order dated 19.07.2011 passed in CWP No.15262 of 2010, upheld vide order dated 11.11.2013 passed in LPA No.1871 of 2013. Counsel for the private respondents point out that similar orders have been implemented in LPA No.1137 of 2014 and even juniors of the private respondents, who filed independent writ petitions, on the same cause of action, have been allowed, Letters Patent Appeals and Special Leave Petitions have also been dismissed.

Counsel for the appellants, however, submits that the writ petitions were wrongly considered as the orders are contrary to other judgments.

Taking into consideration that an agreed order was passed, we are not inclined to entertain the appeal and, therefore, dispose of the appeal subject to any right that the appellants may have to file a petition for review. ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) JUDGE ( LISA GILL ) February 2 , 2016.

JUDGE 'om'

OMKAR SINGH 2016.02.08 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh