Manjit Singh Sahi And Others vs State Of Punjab And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1510 P&H

CWP-29302-2018                                                           -1-
229
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH
                                        ****

CWP-29302-2018 Date of Decision: 11.03.2022 Manjit Singh Sahi and others ..... Petitioners Versus

State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present: Mr. Amrik Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Tarun Vir Singh Lehal, Additional A.G., Punjab.

(Through Video Conference)

*****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

The present petition has been filed for quashing of the memo

dated 29.04.2010 (Annexure P-5) and order dated 03.11.2017 (Annexure P-

11).

Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that in the present

case, claim of the petitioners is squarely governed in their favour keeping in

view the judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-

16446-2010 titled as "Jaswinder Singh Bedi and others Vs. State of

Punjab and others", decided on 20.05.2013, but still prayer of the

petitioners for grant of the same relief has been declined by the respondents

without any valid justification. Learned counsel submits that prayer made in

the present petition is that the respondent-State had declined the grant of

benefit of Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme to the category of

Junior Engineers/Assistant Engineers, who were working with the

1 of 4

respondent/State on completion of 4/9 and 14 years of service. The said

non-grant of the benefit was challenged in the aforementioned CWP-16446-

2010 and the said writ petition was decided holding that the junior

engineers are also entitled for the grant of the ACP Scheme on completion

of 4/9 and 14 years of service and the said judgment has already attained

finality, therefore, as the present petitioners are similarly situated as the

petitioners in the said CWP-16446-2010, they are also entitled for the

benefit of the said judgment.

Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed a reply

wherein though nothing has been mentioned that the petitioners are not

similarly situated as the petitioners in the said CWP-16446-2010 but only

stance taken by the respondents is that the judgment passed in the

aforementioned CWP-16446-2010 can only be implemented qua the

petitioners therein and not to all, who are similarly situated, therefore, the

petitioners here cannot raise the claim for the grant of benefit keeping in

view the order passed by this Court in Jaswinder Singh Bedi's case

(supra).

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the record with their able assistance.

The question of law which has been raised before this Court is

whether once a benefit has been extended to a category of employees, the

same has to be extended to all, who are similarly situated, or everyone needs

to approach the Court time and again for the grant of the same benefit. This

question is no longer res integra keeping in view the judgment passed by a

Division Bench in "Satbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana", 2002(2) S.C.T.

354, wherein it has been held that once a question of law has been

2 of 4

adjudicated by a competent Court of law, the benefit of the said adjudication

is to be extended to all the similarly situated employees without forcing

each and everyone to approach to the Court to claim the same relief. Rather

the Hon'ble Division Bench has held that on being a welfare State, the State

should not force everyone to approach the Court and the said relief should

be made applicable to all. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as

follows:-

" -- x -- x --

..... When judgments attain finality to which the State is a party, duty is casted upon the State to grant relief to its employees who are similarly situated and on identical facts. Benefit of such approach are many and it causes no disadvantage to the interests of the State. It is on necessary for the State to require each one of its employees to approach the Courts of law for grant of a same relief which the State ought to grant to the employees in normal course of its administration, particularly, the cases of the kind afore-referred. Such principles is well known and accepted for years ow. By referring to few judgments we would only predicate the principle with greater emphasis of its application in the day-to-day affairs of the State. In the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Santosh Kumari v. Union of India and others, JT 1994(7) SC 565 : 1995(1) SCT 527 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-

"The allotment of seats should go according to merit. It does not depend upon who comes to Court and who does not. The matter is one of principle and should not depend upon who comes to the court. A more deserving candidate may not have the means of approach the Court."

                                 --     x      --    x    --"
                               3 of 4

Keeping in view the above, once it is not being disputed that

the petitioners in the present petition are similarly situated as the petitioners

in Jaswinder Singh Bedi's case (supra), the benefit as extended to the

petitioners therein cannot be denied to the present petitioners, especially in

view of the law settled by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Satbir Singh's

case (supra).

In view of the above, the claim of the petitioner is allowed in

terms of the order passed by a co-ordinate Bench in Jaswinder Singh

Bedi's case (supra), i.e. CWP-16446-2010, decided on 20.05.2013.

11.03.2022                               (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
Apurva                                           JUDGE


             1. Whether speaking/reasoned :           Yes

             2. Whether reportable             :      Yes




                                4 of 4