Isham Singh Vs Hy State — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Isham Singh Vs Hy State — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of as infructuous on account of the petitioner's death during pendency; liberty granted to the legal representative(s), if any, of the deceased-petitioner to seek revival by appropriate application within six months; pending applications disposed of; copy of the order to be sent to the petitioner's address given in the Memo of Parties.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 04.05.2001 (Annexure P-11), whereby the respondent-State withdrew the increment granted to the petitioner vide order dated 01.07.1992 after about nine years without affording any opportunity of hearing, in violation of the principles of natural justice, is liable to be quashed.

Court's answer

In view of the petitioner's expiry during the pendency of the writ petition and the learned Amicus Curiae being unaware of the particulars of the legal representative(s) of the deceased-petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is granted to the legal representative(s), if any, of the deceased-petitioner to seek revival of the present writ petition by moving an appropriate application within a period of six months from today, if so advised.

Key takeaways

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Nidhi Gupta J.) disposed of a writ petition (CWP No.11437 of 2001) challenging the respondent-State's order dated 04.05.2001 (Annexure P-11) unilaterally withdrawing the increment granted to the petitioner vide order dated 01.07.1992 after about nine years, without affording any opportunity of hearing, allegedly violating principles of natural justice. Recovery had been stayed by this Court vide order dated 06.08.2001, and the State's written statement dated 11.02.2002 recorded that no recovery had been effected and the petitioner's pay stood unfixed. The petitioner expired in December, 2025 during pendency and the Amicus Curiae was unaware of his legal representatives; the petition was accordingly disposed of as infructuous, with liberty to the legal representative(s), if any, to seek revival within six months. Pending applications were disposed of.

1

CWP-11437-2001 (O & M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

201

CWP No.11437 of 2001 (O & M) Date of decision :-13.07.2026

Isam Singh

…..Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another

…..Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:Ms. Simran Chahal, Advoca t e as Amicus Curiae for the petitioner.

Mr. Harish Kumar Nain, D A G, Haryana.

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

Prayer in the present writ p etition is for issuance of an appropri a te writ, order or direction for q uashing the impugned order dated 04. 0 5.2001 (Annexure P-11).

Learned Amicus Curiae a p pearing for the petitioner submits t hat, as per the information re c eived by her, the petitioner expired i n December, 2025. She furth e r submits that she has no knowled g e regarding the legal repres e ntative(s) of the deceasedpetitione r .

It is further submitted that v ide the impugned order, the responde n t-State unilaterally withdrew t h e increment which had been granted t o the petitioner vide order d ated 01.07.1992. The said incremen t was sought to be withdrawn after a lapse of about nine

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.15 17.57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-11437-2001 (O & M) 2

years by v irtue of the impugned order da t ed 04.05.2001 (Annexure P- 11), wit h out affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

Per contra , learned State counsel submits that the incremen t had been erroneously gr a nted to the petitioner in contrave n tion of the applicable rules a n d, therefore, the same was withdrawn by way of the impugned ord e r. He has further referred to the writt e n statement dated 11.02.2002 f iled on behalf of respondent Nos.1 an d 2 to contend that no recover y has been effected from the petitione r . In this regard, reliance has b e en placed upon paragraph 2 of the pr e liminary submissions in the w r itten statement, which reads as under: -

“….The pay of petiti o ner has not been fixed till date on the basis of le t ter dated 4.5.2001 Annexure P/11 as this matter is dealt with separately by the respondent No.2 in vi e w of letter dated 23.5.2001. As the pay of the peti t ioner has not been fixed till date as per letter da t ed 4.5.2001, no question of any recovery from t h e petitioner arises at this stage…..”

At this stage, learned Amic u s Curiae has pointed out that this Cou r t, vide order dated 06.08.20 0 1, had stayed the recovery sought to be effected from the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for th e parties.

Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has expired

during t h e pendency of the present w r it petition and the learned Amicus Curiae is not aware of th e particulars of the legal

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.15 17.57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

3

CWP-11437-2001 (O & M)

represent a tive(s) of the deceased-petition e r, the present writ petition is disposed of as having been rendered inf r uctuous. However, liberty is granted t o the legal representative(s), if any, of the deceasedpetitione r to seek revival of the present writ petition by moving an appropri a te application within a period o f six months from today, if so advised.

Pending application(s), if an y , shall stand(s) disposed of. Copy of this order be sent a t the address of the petitioner given in t he Memo of Parties.

Pending application(s), if an y , shall stand(s) disposed of.

July 13, 2 026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Vijay Asija JUDGE

Whether sp e aking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Re p ortable Yes / No

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.15 17.57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document