Harbhajan Singh vs Union Territory,Chandigarh

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Harbhajan Singh vs Union Territory,Chandigarh on 8 May, 2024

CWP-4502-1997 (O&M) 1 2IREPHHC OST

206
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-4502-1997 (O&M)
DECIDED ON: 08.05.2024
HARBHAJAN SINGH AND OTHERS __--...... PETITIONERS

VERSUS

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS
soeee RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.

Present: Mr. Anurag Chopra, Advocate, and
Mr. Himani Jamwal, Advocate,
for the petitioners.

Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Advocate,
for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

Mr. Tushar Gera, Advocate,
for respondent No.4.

SANJAY VASHISTH, J (ORAL)

1. Present writ petition is lying pending without any decision, since the year 1997, which has been filed by five employees of the DAV College, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh, (respondent No.4), seeking a direction for grant of same pay scales to the petitioners w.e.f. 01.09.1978, as has been granted to the persons similarly situated in other Government colleges.

There is an additional prayer also, to issue a direction that freezing date of 01.11.1979 be quashed and the benefit granted to the employees promoted before 01.11.1979 be also extended to the petitioners.

NEES einen Punjab & Haryana Hi Chandigarh LAVISHA 2024.05.09 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and CWP-4502-1997 (O&M) 2

2. Mr. Anurag Chopra, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners informs the Court that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have already expired, during pendency of the present writ petition. Thus, pendency of claim raised by the petitioners and that too, without any substantive decision, is frustrating their rights and very purpose of filing of the writ petition also gets defeated.

3. On being asked by the Court, counsel representing respondent Nos.1 to 3, confirms that till date, no decision has been taken by the respondent -- Administration. Therefore, relief claimed by the petitioners cannot be directly entertained by the Court in its writ jurisdiction.

Further submits that petitioners are, in fact, claiming parity with their counter-parts working under the respondent -- Administration, who are posted in the Government Colleges and performing similar duties.

4. This Court is surprised to acknowledge the fact that Administration has completely failed to take any substantive decision on the claim raised by the petitioners, on either side.

5. At this stage, counsel for the petitioners submits that he would be satisfied if, respondents are directed to decide the claim raised through present writ petition, within some time bound manner because, without any decision by the respondents, relief claimed by the petitioners can not be examined by this Court at its first instance.

6. This Court has noticed the fact that present writ petition is pending for the last 28-29 years, and the respondent -- Administration has authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP-4502-1997 (O&M) 3 not even taken any decision either side, on the relief/claim raised by the petitioners or even in regard to the other employees who were/are posted in the other similarly situated private colleges, vis-a-vis rights of the employees posted in the Government colleges.

7. In conspectus of the above, present writ petition is disposed of, with a direction that the petitioners would move a fresh comprehensive representation along with supporting documents, thereby substantiating their rights, within a period of one week from today, and submit the same to respondent Nos.1 to 3.

In case, any such representation is submitted, same would be considered and decided within next eight weeks from the date of submission of the representation, by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law and if permissible, by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

Let final decision be communicated to the petitioners forthwith.

8. Needless to say that in case, it is decided that the petitioners are entitled for the claimed relief, same would be extended to them, without any unnecessary delay.

9. Disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) 08.05.2024 JUDGE Lavisha Whether speaking/reasoned v Yes/Ne Whether reportable ¥es/v No LAVISHA 2024.05.09 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh