← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/31194/2018disposed of

Bhupinder Singh And ORS v. State Of Punjab And ORS

2019-03-18Mr. Justice Arun Palli3 pages

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision: - 18.03.2019 Bhupinder Singh and others ....Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present:- Mr. Armaan Gugneja, Advocate for Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate, for the applicants-petitioners.

Ms. Deepali Puri Sandhu, Additional Advocate General, Pb. for the non-applicants/respondents.

**** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL) CM-4089-CWP-2019 Present application has been filed to list the present CWP No.31194 of 2018 at an early actual date of hearing as per the facts mentioned therein.

Notice of the application to the respondents. On the asking of the Court, Ms. Deepali Puri Sandhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents-State.

After hearing the counsel for the parties and on their request that the main writ petition can now be listed and heard in view of the decision by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.659 of 2018, titled as 'State of Punjab and others Vs. Daljit Singh and others', decided on

-227.02.2019, the present application is allowed and the main case is taken on board today itself with the consent of the parties. CM stands allowed.

CWP-31194-2018 (O&M) In the present writ petition, the prayer of the petitioners is that they are entitled for the revised pay-scale w.e.f. 01.01.1986 instead of 1991 in terms of the order passed by this Court in CWP No.9175 of 2000, decided on 26.05.2017, wherein, the same grievance was raised by the similarly situated persons, which prayer, has already been accepted by this Court and a direction has already been given to the respondents to grant the pay-scale w.e.f. 01.01.1986 instead of from the year 1991. Counsel for the petitioners states that LPA No.659 of 2018 filed against the said order passed by the Learned Single Judge has already been dismissed on 27.02.2019 and therefore, as of now, there is no impediment in the release of the benefits to the employees, who are covered by the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.9175 of 2000, decided on 26.05.2017.

Counsel for the petitioners further states that for the relief which has been sought in the present writ petition, the petitioners have served the respondents with a legal notice on 14.04.2018 (Annexure P-7), which is still pending consideration with the respondents and the petitioners will be satisfied, at this stage, in case a time bound direction is issued to the respondents to decide the said legal notice. Counsel for the petitioners further states that in reply to the

-3said legal notice, the respondents themselves have mentioned in their letter dated 16.05.2018 that the appropriate decision for the grant of benefits will be taken by the Government after the decision of LPA No.659 of 2018.

Counsel for the respondents very fairly states that as the LPA No.659 of 2018 has already been decided, the appropriate decision will be taken in respect of the plea of the petitioners for the grant of benefits in terms of the order passed by this Court in CWP No.9175 of 2000, decided on 26.05.2017, in a time bound manner.

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the claim being made by the petitioners in the legal notice, the respondents are directed to decide the legal notice dated 14.04.2018 (Annexure P-7) by passing a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case after the decision, it is found that the petitioners are entitled for any monetary benefit, the same shall also be released to him within a period of next three months.

Present writ petition stands disposed of.

( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI ) March 18, 2019 JUDGE naresh.k Whether reasoned/speaking?

Yes Whether reportable?

No