Navneet Kaur and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Navneet Kaur and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Matters disposed of with respondents to relook at the matter and decide afresh within 6 months taking note of the speaking orders at Annexures P-11 to P-13; step-up benefit to be granted forthwith if the petitioners are found entitled; any adverse order to be passed only after opportunity of hearing, containing reasons, leaving the petitioners free to seek legal redress.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to step up of pay at par with their juniors, the rejection of which claim is sought to be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

Disposing of the petitions, the Court recorded learned State counsel's instruction-backed statement that the respondents would not be averse to relooking at the matter and deciding afresh within a period of 6 months, taking note of the aforesaid orders (Annexures P-11 to P-13), the Court stating it had no reason to believe the authorities would not address the matter in a just, fair and reasonable manner. The substantive question of step-up pay parity was not adjudicated by this Court.

Ratio / Principle

On fresh consideration, if the petitioners are found entitled, the benefit is to be granted forthwith.

Key takeaways

Both the cases involve similar issues and are therefore disposed of together by this order.obiter¶¶18
If the fresh orders are adverse to the petitioners' interest, they may be passed only after granting an opportunity of hearing and shall contain reasons, whereupon the petitioners shall be free to seek legal redress.ratio¶¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP-12466-2022 (Harpreet Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another) and a connected case involving similar issues, disposed of together by an oral order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh (Aman Chaudhary, J.), dated 04.02.2025. Prayer: quashing of the order rejecting the petitioners' claim for step up of pay at par with their juniors. Learned counsel relied on speaking orders dated 06.03.2020, 20.06.2020 and 17.01.2020 (Annexures P-11 to P-13) whereby claims of similarly situated employees also working as PTI were accepted but denied to the petitioners — a fact not denied in the written statement. During hearing, learned State counsel, on instructions, stated the respondents would not be averse to a relook and a fresh decision within 6 months taking note of those orders. Matters stood disposed of accordingly: benefit forthwith if found entitled; any adverse order to follow opportunity of hearing, with reasons, leaving the petitioners free to seek legal redress. No statute or precedent was cited and the substantive entitlement was left to fresh determination by the authorities.

�� CWP-12466-2022

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

239

Date of decision: 04.02.2025

�� ��

�� ....Petitioners

Versus

�� ...Respondents 2. CWP-12466-2022

HARPREET SINGH AND OTHERS ....Petitioners

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ...Respondents

**CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *******

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

��

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1 . Both the cases involve similar issues and therefore, are being disposed of together.

2 . Prayer made in the present petitions is for quashing of the order, whereby, the claim of the petitioners is to step up of pay at par with their juniors has been rejected.

3 . Learned counsel refers to speaking orders dated 06.03.2020, 20.06.2020 and 17.01.2020 (Annexures P-11 to P-13), whereby the claim of similarly situated employees who were also working as PTI like the petitioners

AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2025.02.06 22:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

�� CWP-12466-2022

- 2 -

have been accepted, however, denied to the petitioners, a fact which in the written statement has not been denied.

4 . The aforesaid facts having been brought out, during the course of hearing, learned State counsel on instructions, states that the respondents would not be averse to have a relook at the matter and decide afresh, taking note of the aforesaid orders, within a period of 6 months, which this Court has no reason to believe the authorities would not address in a just, fair and reasonable manner.

5 . The aforesaid satisfies the learned counsel for the petitioners.

6 . The matters stand disposed of accordingly and if the petitioners 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.

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

	(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE
04.02.2025
Amandeep
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes / No
Whether reportable	: Yes / No

AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2025.02.06 22:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment