Present: Mr.Vikas Chatrath Advocate Vs. State of Punjab and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1063809
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMay-21-2013
AppellantPresent: Mr.Vikas Chatrath Advocate
RespondentState of Punjab and Another
Excerpt:
civil writ petition no.11039 of 2013 {1} in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh date of decision: may 21, 2013 sat pal ...petitioner versus state of punjab & another ...respondents coram:- hon'ble mr.justice augustine george masih present: mr.vikas chatrath, advocate, for the petitioner. **** augustine george masih, j. (oral) learned counsel appearing for the petitioner refers to order dated 03.01.2012 passed by this court in cwp no.70 of 2012 (o&m) “saranjit kaur and others versus state of punjab and others (annexure p-9).wherein in the case of identically situated employees, directions have been issued to consider the claims of the petitioners therein, in the light of the decision of this court rendered in cwp no.3931 of 1992 titled as baldev raj mittal and others versus state of punjab and others.decided on 15.04.2009 (annexure p-7).the present petitioner is stated to be identically situated and is seeking higher grade as per qualification possessed by him in view of the government instructions dated 23.07.1957 (annexure p- 2).in the light of averments made in the present petition, civil writ petition no.11039 of 2013 {2} i deem it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to respondent no.2-director, public instructions (secondary education).punjab to decide the representation dated 22.10.2012 (annexure p-8) within a period of three months from the date of a receipt of a certified copy of this order. suffice it to observe that while considering and deciding the claim of the petitioner, the authorities shall keep in mind the judgment dated 15.04.2009, rendered by this court in baldev raj mittal and others versus state of punjab and others (annexure p-7).in case the claim of the petitioner is accepted, the consequential benefits, if any, be released to him, in accordance with law, within a further period of two months. arrears shall be restricted to 38 months from the date of filing of the representation. in case the claim of the petitioner is not to be accepted, then a well reasoned and speaking order be passed and conveyed to the petitioner forthwith. disposed of. may 21, 2013 (augustine george masih) ramesh judge
Judgment:

Civil Writ Petition No.11039 of 2013 {1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: May 21, 2013 Sat Pal ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH PRESENT: Mr.Vikas Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioner.

**** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

(ORAL) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner refers to order dated 03.01.2012 passed by this Court in CWP No.70 of 2012 (O&M) “Saranjit Kaur and others versus State of Punjab and others (Annexure P-9).wherein in the case of identically situated employees, directions have been issued to consider the claims of the petitioners therein, in the light of the decision of this Court rendered in CWP No.3931 of 1992 titled as Baldev Raj Mittal and others versus State of Punjab and otheRs.decided on 15.04.2009 (Annexure P-7).The present petitioner is stated to be identically situated and is seeking higher grade as per qualification possessed by him in view of the Government Instructions dated 23.07.1957 (Annexure P- 2).In the light of averments made in the present petition, Civil Writ Petition No.11039 of 2013 {2} I deem it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to respondent No.2-Director, Public Instructions (Secondary Education).Punjab to decide the representation dated 22.10.2012 (Annexure P-8) within a period of three months from the date of a receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Suffice it to observe that while considering and deciding the claim of the petitioner, the authorities shall keep in mind the judgment dated 15.04.2009, rendered by this Court in Baldev Raj Mittal and others versus State of Punjab and others (Annexure P-7).In case the claim of the petitioner is accepted, the consequential benefits, if any, be released to him, in accordance with law, within a further period of two months.

Arrears shall be restricted to 38 months from the date of filing of the representation.

In case the claim of the petitioner is not to be accepted, then a well reasoned and speaking order be passed and conveyed to the petitioner forthwith.

Disposed of.

May 21, 2013 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) ramesh JUDGE