Disposed¶21

Karnail Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Mar 2025CWP/6580/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

arrears of pay refixation; denial of arrears without reasons; para 9(d) speaking order; State of Punjab; fresh consideration within four months; opportunity of hearing; reasoned speaking order; Jagmohan Lal Mittal CWP-7894-2010; CWP-27149-2018; CWP-9791-2020 directions; speaking order dated 31.08.2022; arrears paid to similarly situated employees; SLP No.1868-2015; LPA-504-2012; Punjab & Haryana High Court; Aman Chaudhary J.; oral disposal of writ petitions.

What did the court decide?

Both petitions disposed of by common order: respondents to re-examine and decide afresh within four months taking note of the aforesaid judgments and submissions; if petitioners are found entitled, benefit to be granted forthwith; any adverse order to be passed after opportunity of hearing and with reasons. ¶21

Karnail Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to payment of arrears following refixation of pay, which were denied under para 9(d) of the speaking order without assigning any reason.

¶13

Court's answer

On instructions, State counsel stated before the Court that the respondents would re-examine the matter and decide it afresh, taking note of the aforesaid judgments and the submissions, within a period of 4 months.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioners are found entitled upon such fresh consideration, the benefit is to be granted forthwith.

¶22

Key takeaways

Any order adverse to the petitioners is to be passed only after granting them an opportunity of hearing and shall contain reasons, whereupon they remain free to seek legal redress.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Chandigarh) — CWP-6580-2020 (Karnail Singh and others) and CWP-6583-2020 (Shyam Sunder and others) vs. State of Punjab — oral common order, Aman Chaudhary J., 03.03.2025. Petitions sought setting aside of para 9(d) of a speaking order denying arrears of pay refixation without assigning any reason. The claim traced back to CWP-7894-2010 (Jagmohan Lal Mittal and others vs. State of Punjab and others), disposed of on 31.01.2012 with a speaking order deferring consideration until decision of SLP No.1868-2015 and LPA-504-2012; despite subsequent acceptance of the claim (following CWP-27149-2018), arrears remained unpaid, while a speaking order dated 31.08.2022 passed pursuant to directions in CWP-9791-2020 had resulted in arrears being paid to similarly situated employees of the same department. On instructions, State counsel undertook to re-examine the matter and decide afresh within four months, taking note of the aforesaid judgments and submissions. The Court disposed of the petitions, directing that if the petitioners are found entitled the benefit be granted forthwith, and that any adverse order be passed only after granting an opportunity of hearing and with reasons, leaving them free to seek legal redress thereafter.

¶1

CWP-6580-2020 CWP-6583-2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

236-2 cases

¶5

CWP-6580-2020 Date of decision: 03.03.2025

¶6

Karnail Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CWP-6583-2020 Shyam Sunder and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ..Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

¶8

********* Present: Mr. Nitesh Singla, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶9

Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab.

¶10

¶11

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral)

¶12

Both the cases involve similar issues and therefore, are being disposed of together by this common order.

¶13

Prayer made in the present petitions is for setting aside the para 9(d) of the speaking order whereby arrears after refixation of pay have been denied without assigning any reason.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the prayer is for granting arrears of refixation at least 38 months prior to filing their initial writ petition i.e. CWP-7894-2010, titled as Jagmohan Lal Mittal and others vs. State of Punjab and others , which was disposed of vide order dated 31.01.2012 and a speaking order was passed for consideration of the claim after decision of SLP No.1868-2015 and LPA-504-2012. Thereafter, still the

¶15

benefit was not granted and CWP-27149-2018, Annexure P-7 was filed, HAMANT whereafter the claim has been accepted, however, arrears have not been paid. 2025.03.04 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

¶17

CWP-6580-2020 CWP-6583-2020

¶18

He places reliance on speaking order dated 31.08.2022, pursuant to the directions passed by this Court in CWP-9791-2020, during the pendency of the present petition, whereby arrears to similarly situated employees have been paid by the same very department.

¶19

The aforesaid facts having been brought out, during the course of hearing, l earned State counsel, on instructions, states that the respondents would not be averse to have a relook at the matter and decided afresh, taking note of the aforesaid judgments as also the submissions, within a period of 4 months, which this Court has no reason to believe the authorities would not address in a just, fair and reasonable manner.

¶20

The aforesaid satisfies the learned counsel for the petitioners .

¶21

The matter stands disposed of accordingly and if the petitioners

¶22

are found entitled, grant the benefit forthwith . Needless to say, if the orders are adverse to their interest, the same may be passed after granting opportunity of hearing to them and shall contain reasons, whereupon they shall be free to seek legal redress thereupon.

¶23

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.

¶24

		(AMAN C JU	HAUDHARY) DGE
03.03.2025
Hemant
	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes	/ No
	Whether reportable	: Yes	/ No

¶25

HAMANT 2025.03.04 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Karnail Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnail Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surinder Kumar Kanth etc. Vs State of Pb. and Ors.

Jagtar Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Baljinder Kaur Vs State of Pb.

Aarti Vs State of Punjab and Others

Tarsem Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gurdeep Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others