High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Harjinder Singh Sandhu & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 23 October, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harjinder Singh Sandhu & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 23 October, 2009
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                             CHANDIGARH.




                                       Civil Writ Petition No. 5337 of 2000

                            DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 23, 2009




HARJINDER SINGH SANDHU & ANR.

                                                     ....... PETITIONER(S)

                                  VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                                     .... RESPONDENT(S)



CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA



Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
Mr. YK Sharma, DAG, Punjab.



AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has

been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order

dated 12.11.1999 (Annexure P-9). It has been pleaded that other persons

similarly situated as the petitioners have been granted the relief of higher

pay scale, on acquiring higher qualification. The benefit, however, has

been denied to the petitioners.

A perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P-9) indicates that
Civil Writ Petition No. 5337 of 2000 2

the petitioners had earlier approached this Court by way of filing CWP

1459 of 1999 (Harjinder Singh Sandhu v. State of Punjab and others), for

claiming the pay scale of Rs.110-250, on acquiring higher qualification.

The petition was disposed of vide order dated 3.2.1999 with a direction

that Justice Demand Notice/representation be decided.

Vide the impugned order (Annexure P-9), the claim of the

petitioners for grant of pay scale of Rs.110-250, on acquiring higher

qualification, has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the case is

covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in CWP 3931 of 1992

(Baldev Raj Mittal and others v. State of Punjab and others) decided on

15.4.2009.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State concedes that the

issue raised in this petition is covered by the judgment rendered by this

Court in Baldev Raj Mittal’s case 9supra).

In view of the conceded position, the impugned order

(Annexure P-9) is hereby quashed and the petition is allowed in terms of

the judgment in Baldev Raj Mittal’s case (supra).

September 23, 2009                                      ( AJAI LAMBA )
Kang                                                            JUDGE



1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?