Bhinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Bhinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondents to consider the grievances raised in the petitioner's representation dated 25.10.2023 (Annexure P-9) in accordance with law and pass a speaking order within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order; no relief on the substantive claim of counting past service was granted, merits having been left open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's past service w.e.f 10.01.1993 to 09.03.2015 should be counted as regular service for the purpose of increment and pensionary benefit. +1 more

Court's answer

The court expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim; that question was left open.

Ratio / Principle

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the claim made by the petitioner, respondents were directed to consider the grievances put forth in the petitioner's representation dated 25.10.2023 (Annexure P-9) in accordance with law by passing a speaking order.

Key takeaways

The speaking order deciding the representation was to be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Deepak Gupta, J., oral) — CWP-818-2025, decided 15.01.2025. Writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India by a former Tubewell Operator of Municipal Council Khanna seeking a mandamus to count his past service from 10.01.1993 to 09.03.2015 as regular service for increment and pensionary benefits. Petitioner had joined on 10.01.1993, was terminated on 01.11.1999, obtained reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages via Labour Court award dated 28.10.2013 after raising an industrial dispute, was re-appointed on 05.03.2014, and his detailed representation dated 25.10.2023 (Annexure P-9) went unactioned. Counsel for the petitioner confined the prayer to a decision on that representation; the State's counsel raised no objection to the 'innocuous prayer'. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the court disposed of the petition directing respondents to consider the grievances in the representation in accordance with law by passing a speaking order within two months from receipt of certified copy of the order.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

123

CWP-818-2025 Date of Decision: 15.01.2025

BHINDER SINGH …..Pe))oner

Vs.

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS …..Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present: Mr. A.P. Singh, Advocate for the pe��oner.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

By of way of this pe��on filed under Ar�cle 226/227 of the Constu��on of India, pe��oner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus direc�ng the respondents authori�es to count his past service w.e.f 10.01.1993 to 09.03.2015 as regular service for the purpose of increment and pensionary benefit.

It is submi-ed by learned counsel for the pe��oner that pe��oner had joined at Municipal Council Khanna as Tubewell operator on 10.01.1993. His services were terminated on 01.11.1999 without assigning any jus�fiable cause. He challenged the termina�on order by raising an industrial dispute. The Labour Court vide its award dated 28.10.2013 ordered for reinstatement with con�nued service and 50% backwages. He was then appointed on 05.03.2014.

It is contended by learned counsel for the pe��oner that re�rement of the pe��oner is drawing near and so he approached the competent authority and to count his back service on adhoc basis or regular basis for the purpose of increment and seniority but to no effect. He even sent a detalied representa�on dated 25.10.2023 (Annexure P-9) but no ac�on has been taken thereon.

At this stage, learned counsel for the pe��oner submits that he will be sa�sfied if his representa�on dated 25.10.2023 (Annexure P-9) is considered and decided by passing a speaking order in the �me bound manner.

No�ce of mo�on.

PRIYANKA 2025.01.15 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-818-2025

-2-

Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Addi�onal AG, Punjab accepts no�ce on behalf of the respondents and submits that he has no objec�on to the innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the pe��oner.

I have heard learned counsel for the par�es and have gone through the record of the case.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the claim being made by the pe��oner in the present pe��on, respondents are directed to consider the grievances pu@orth by the pe��oner in representa�on dated 25.10.2023 (Annexure P-9), in accordance with law, by passing a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of cer�fied copy of this order.

The pe��on stands disposed of.

( DEEPAK GUPTA )

15.01.2025

2025	JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
Whether reportable	: Yes/No

pry

PRIYANKA 2025.01.15 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document