there Are Six Petitions Which Raise a Common Question Being Vs. Union Territory Chd. and Others - Court Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 11.02.2014 1.

Civil Writ Petition No.9823 of 2002 Chidambram and otheRs...Petitioners Versus Union Territory, Chd.

and others ..Respondents 2.

Civil Writ Petition No.9931 of 2002 Raju ..Petitioner Versus Union Territory, Chd.

and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE.

HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN PALLI1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.

2.

Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?.

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

Present : Mr.Ashok Kumar Nabhewala, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Ms.Liza Gill, Advocate, for U.T.Administration, Chd.

In CWP No.9823 of 2002.

Ms.Alka Chatrath, Advocate for U.T.Administration, Chd.

In CWP No.9931 of 2002.

**** SANJAY KISHAN KAUL C.J.(Oral) There are six petitions which raise a common question being the present two petitions and Civil Writ Petitions No.4739, 4799, 4772 and 4773 of 2002.

We had heard learned counsel for the petitioners yesterday on the merits of the controveRs.and had called for records of those petitions today before us.

It transpires that learned counsel for the petitioners represented the petitioners in those petitions also and those petitions stand dismissed as also the Review Application filed thereafter.

The logical consequence thus would be that the present two writ petitions are also to be dismissed.

However, we may note the limited contours of the controveRs.sought to be urged before us by learned counsel for the petitioners which Sharma Ravinder 2014.02.12 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.9823 of 2002 [2].was qua the rate of Dearness Allowance and the date from which it is to be payable.

As far as the date from which it is to be payable is concerned, the controveRs.stands determined in the connected petitions and the petitioners cannot be permitted to urge this issue again.

As far as the rate of Dearness Allowance is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent-Union Territory, Chandigarh states that she has obtained instructions that Dearness Allowance is being paid at revised rates as and when applicable at par with regular workers of the same category.

The said statement is taken on record.

In view thereof, even this grievance does not survive for consideration.

Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed in the aforesaid terMs.(SANJAY KISHAN KAUL) CHIEF JUSTICE (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE1102.2014 ‘ravinder’ Sharma Ravinder 2014.02.12 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document