Disposed

Pawan Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 May 2013CWP/11477/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana directed respondents to treat the writ petition as a representation and consider the petitioners' claim for minimum regular pay scale reference to a prior Division Bench judgment in Mohinder Singh case.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to treat petition as representation and consider claim in light of Mohinder Singh case decision within four months.

Pawan Kumar and Ors. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.11477 of 2013 Date of Decision : May 24, 2013

¶3

Pawan Kumar and others

¶4

.....Petitioners

¶5

versus

¶6

State of Haryana and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH.

¶9

Present : Mr.Ramesh Malik, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.R.D.Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

¶10

-.-

¶11

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

¶15

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶16

Notice of motion.

¶17

Mr.R.D.Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General,

¶18

Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶19

Let three copies of the writ petition be supplied to learned State counsel during the course of day failing which the order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶20

In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage.

¶21

The petitioners while questioning the vires of Haryana Transport Department (Group-C) Haryana Roadways Service (Amendment) Rules, 2003 dated 4.8.2003 (Annexure P-1); Haryana Transport Department (Group-C) Haryana Roadways Service (Amendment) Rules 2004 dated 18.3.2004

¶22

CWP No.11477 of 2013

¶23

[2]

¶24

(Annexure P-2) and Haryana Transport Department (Group-C) Haryana Roadways Service (Amendment) Rules, 2011 dated 3.3.2011 (Annexure P-3), seek a direction to the respondents to grant them minimum regular pay scale meant for the post of Conductors/Drivers. In this regard, they rely upon a Division Bench decision of this Court dated 1.4.2013 passed in a bunch of writ petitions including CWP No.22516 of 2012 (Mohinder Singh and others versus State of Haryana and others) (Annexure P-4).

¶25

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to treat this petition as a representation on behalf of the petitioners and consider their claim in the light of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Mohinder Singh and others' case (supra). In case the petitioners are found entitled to the claimed benefit(s), they shall be granted the same within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

¶26

Ordered accordingly.

¶27

Dasti.

¶28

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE $ May 24, 2013 (R.P.NAGRATH) Mohinder JUDGE

Pawan Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jarnail Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Arshdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Hasan Khan Vs Union of India & Ors.

Dipinder Singh Brar and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Amrik Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and etc.

Secretary Deptt of Education (Schools) Chd Administration and Ors. Vs Arpana Mahajan and Ors.