The single judge disposed of this writ petition regarding increment withdrawal without expressing an opinion on merits. The petitioner was directed to file a representation with the respondents.
Disposal; direction to file representation within four weeks for expeditie consideration.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP-6763-2019
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-6763-2019 Date of decision: - 13.03.2019
Mehar Singh Dhaka
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present:Mr. Rajinder Singh Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL)
Counsel for the petitioner states that similarly situated persons, from whom also, the benefit for one increment was withdrawn w.e.f. 01.09.2009 and recovery was effected, their cases have been allowed by this Court while deciding CWP No.3922 of 2011 titled as 'Narender Pal Singh Arya and another Vs. State of Haryana and others', decided on 03.10.2016 alongwith other connected cases.
Counsel for the petitioner states that after the said judgment had attained finality, instructions were issued by the Government of Haryana on 15.03.2018 (Annexure P-6), but the benefit has only been restricted to the petitioners, who had approached this Court.
Counsel for the petitioner states that once the notification dated 09.04.2010 (Annexure P-4) has been set aside, therefore, the recovery done from the petitioner becomes illegal and he is also entitled for the same benefit, as extended to the petitioners in CWP No.3922 of
NARESH KUMAR 2019.03.20 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CWP-6763-2019
-2-
2011 alongwith other connected cases, decided on 03.10.2016.
Before approaching this Court, the petitioner has not approached the respondents for the grievance, which has been raised by him in the present writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will file representation with the respondents claiming the relief as noticed above and prays that the respondents be directed to decide the said representation in a time bound manner.
In view of the above request, the present writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to file a representation in respect of the claim made in the present writ petition with the respondents within a period of four weeks from today. In case any representation is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be decided by the respondents expeditiously in view of the law laid down by this Court as noticed above by passing a speaking order. Further, in case the petitioner is found entitled for the relief, the same shall also be extended to him as well.
It is made clear that this Court does not express any opinion on the merits of the case and the claim being made in the present writ petition or the representation to be filed by the petitioner before the respondents.
Present writ petition stands disposed of.
( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI )
March 13, 2019 JUDGE naresh.k
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes Whether reportable? No
NARESH KUMAR 2019.03.20 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to similar benefits granted to similarly situated persons in a earlier judgment and have the recovery made from him set aside.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narender Pal Singh Arya and another Vs. State of Haryana and othersReferred¶14
CWP No.3922 of 2011
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mehar Singh Dhaka
State of Haryana
Harsimran Singh Sethi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
