This Bench dismissed intra-court appeals challenging orders rejecting representations for past service benefit. The Court upheld the Single Judge decision, rejecting an attempt to distinguish precedent based on salary structure and noting there was no laches.
Intra-court appeals LPA Nos. 832 and 834 of 2019 are dismissed.
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.
I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH
1. LPA No. 832 of 2019 ( O&M) DATE OF DECI SI ON: 22. 05. 2019
St at e of Har yana and ot her s
…. . Appel l ant s
ver sus
Dr . Vi kas Gupt a and anot her
2. LPA No. 834 of 2019 ( O&M)
St at e of Har yana and ot her s
…. . Appel l ant s
ver sus
Ashok Kumar Gar g and anot her
CORAM: - HON’ BLE MR. JUSTI CE KRI SHNA MURARI , CHI EF JUSTI CE HON’ BLE MR. JUSTI CE ARUN PALLI , JUDGE
Pr esent : Shr i Deepak Bal yan, Addi t i onal Advocat e Gener al , Har yana, f or t he appel l ant s
Shr i Rakesh Nagpal , Advocat e f or t he caveat or / r espondent No. 1 i n LPA- 832- 2019 Shr i Nami t Kumar , Advocat e f or t he caveat or / r espondent No. 1 i n LPA- 834- 2019
KRI SHNA MURARI , CHI EF JUSTI CE : ( Or al )
Del ay of 20 days i n f i l i ng bot h t he appeal s and 15 days i n r e- f i l i ng LPA- 832- 2019 i s condoned f or t he r easons st at ed i n t he del ay condonat i on appl i cat i ons and t he same st and di sposed of .
LPA Nos. 832 and 834 of 2019:
These i nt r a- Cour t appeal s under cl ause- X of t he Let t er s Pat ent ar e di r ect ed agai nst a common j udgment and
PARKASH CHAND 2019.05.23 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
LPA Nos. 832 & 834 of 2019
- 2 -
or der dat ed 18. 12. 2018 passed by l ear ned si ngl e Judge al l owi ng t he wr i t pet i t i on f i l ed by t he r espondent s- pet i t i oner s seeki ng benef i t of past ser vi ce r ender ed by t hem i n anot her i nst i t ut i on bef or e j oi ni ng t he pr esent i nst i t ut i on vi s- à- vi s a wr i t of cer t i or ar i f or quashi ng t he or der dat ed 16. 06. 2014 and 07. 07. 2015 wher eby t he r epr esent at i ons made by t hem f or gr ant of benef i t of past r egul ar ser vi ce r ender ed i n pr evi ous i nst i t ut i on wer e r ej ect ed. Bot h t hese appeal s bei ng based on i dent i cal set of f act s and r ai si ng common quest i ons of l aw, have been hear d t oget her and ar e bei ng deci ded by t hi s common j udgment .
The l ear ned si ngl e Judge whi l e al l owi ng t he wr i t pet i t i ons has pl aced r el i ance upon a j udgment of t hi s cour t r ender ed i n t he case of Dr . Romi l a Jai n vs. St at e of Har yana, 1995( 3) SCT 53 . wher ei n an i dent i cal i ssue was i nvol ved f or adj udi cat i on. The l ear ned si ngl e Judge al so pl aced r el i ance upon t he f act t hat t he j udgment r ender ed i n t he case of Dr . Romi l a Jai n ( supr a) has subsequent l y been f ol l owed i n a l ar ge number of cases i ncl udi ng CWP No. 20283 of 2005, deci ded on 28. 04. 2008 ( Ani l Kumar Dahi ya vs. Uni on of I ndi a and ot her s ) and CWP No. 6959 of 2009, deci ded on 04. 12. 2009 ( Dr . V. Sar aswat i , Ret d. Zool ogy Lect ur er , GVM Gi r l s Col l ege, Sonepat vs. The St at e of Har yana & ot her s) . Ref er ence has al so been made by t he l ear ned si ngl e Judge t o var i ous pr ecedent s gr ant i ng i dent i cal r el i ef as cl ai med by t he r espondent s- pet i t i oner s t o var i ous ot her si mi l ar l y si t uat ed empl oyees.
Shr i Bal yan, l ear ned Addi t i onal Advocat e Gener al f or t he St at e of Har yana, has t r i ed t o di st i ngui sh t he j udgment r ender ed i n t he case of Dr . Romi l a Jai n ( supr a) by ur gi ng t hat
PARKASH CHAND 2019.05.23 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
LPA Nos. 832 & 834 of 2019
- 3 -
si nce i n t he case i n hand t he appoi nt ment of t he r espondent s- pet i t i oner s was made on a consol i dat ed sal ar y, t her ef or e, t he pr i nci pl es l ai d down i n t he sai d j udgment woul d not st and at t r act ed and t he r at i o deci dendi has been wr ongl y r el i ed upon by l ear ned si ngl e Judge.
I n r epl y, l ear ned counsel appear i ng f or t he r espondent s- pet i t i oner s, r ef er r i ng t o appoi nt ment l et t er of r espondent - pet i t i oner Dr . Vi kas Gupt a ( Annexur e P/ 2 i n hi s wr i t pet i t i on) , poi nt s out t hat t he appoi nt ment was made wi t h a st ar t i ng basi c pay of Rs. 8000/ - per mont h i n t he AI CTE Gr ade of Rs. 8000- 275- 13500/ - pl us DA admi ssi bl e as per col l ege r ul es and, t hus, t he cont ent i on advanced by l ear ned Addi t i onal Advocat e Gener al i s absol ut el y i ncor r ect on f act s. So i s t he case of t he ot her r espondent - pet i t i oner wher ei n al so t he appoi nt ment was made on a scal e of pay. Lear ned counsel f or t he r espondent s- pet i t i oner s al so poi nt ed out t hat t he r espondent s- pet i t i oner s wer e gr ant ed seni or / hi gher pay scal e af t er compl et i on of f i ve year s of ser vi ce i n t he r espondent i nst i t ut i on. Thus, t he ar gument advanced by l ear ned Addi t i onal Advocat e Gener al , Har yana, f or di st i ngui shi ng t he r at i o of t he deci si on r ender ed i n Dr . Romi l a Jai n ( supr a) i s unt enabl e and has no l egs t o st and.
Anot her ar gument advanced by Shr i Bal yan, l ear ned Addi t i onal Advocat e Gener al , Har yana, i s i n r espect of del ay and l aches on behal f of t he r espondent s- pet i t i oner s i n appr oachi ng t hi s Cour t f or t he r el i ef cl ai med. Thi s i ssue was r ai sed bef or e t he l ear ned si ngl e Judge as wel l and a f i ndi ng has been r et ur ned t hat when t he i ssue i ni t i al l y ar ose
PARKASH CHAND 2019.05.23 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
LPA Nos. 832 & 834 of 2019
- 4 -
r epr esent at i ons wer e made wi t hout any del ay on 27. 09. 2006 f ol l owed by var i ous r emi nder r epr esent at i ons, but t he same r emai ned pendi ng wi t h t he appel l ant s undeci ded and i t was onl y i n pur suance t o t he di r ect i on i ssued by t hi s Cour t on a wr i t pet i t i on f i l ed by t he r espondent s a deci si on on t he r epr esent at i ons was t aken on 07. 07. 2015 i n LPA- 832- 2019 and on 16. 06. 2014 i n LPA- 834- 2019. I t was onl y af t er t he deci si on on t he r epr esent at i ons t he j ur i sdi ct i on of t hi s cour t was i nvoked and, t hus, i t cannot be sai d t hat t her e was any del ay and l aches on t he par t of t he r espondent s- pet i t i oner s. The ar gument of l ear ned Addi t i onal Advocat e Gener al , on t hi s scor e, i s al so not l i abl e t o be accept ed as t he same i s not bor ne out f r om t he f act s and ci r cumst ances of t he case.
No ot her gr ound was r ai sed or pr essed bef or e us.
I n t he wake of t he above f act s and di scussi on, t her e exi st s no good gr ound f or us t o t ake a vi ew di f f er ent f r om t he one t aken by t he l ear ned si ngl e Judge. The appeal s ar e devoi d of mer i t s and st and di smi ssed.
( KRI SHNA MURARI ) CHI EF JUSTI CE
( ARUN PALLI ) JUDGE
par kash
NOTE: Whet her speaki ng/ non- speaki ng: Speaki ng Whet her r epor t abl e: YES/ NO
PARKASH CHAND 2019.05.23 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Single Judge?s reliance on Dr. Romila Jain is applicable given the consolidated salary appointment of appellants.
Whether delay and laches invalidate the filing of intra-court appeals seeking past service benefit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr. Vikas Gupta and others
Ashok Kumar Garg and others
Krishna Murari
Arun Palli
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
