Shiv Kumar vs The Haryana Tourism Corporation ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5753 P&H

                                                             Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061316




RSA-1362-2021 (O&M)                                             2023:PHHC:061316
                                        1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

(202)                                  RSA-1362-2021 (O&M)
                                       Date of Decision : 29.04.2023

Shiv Kumar
                                                                        ...Appellant

                                 Versus

The Haryana Tourism Corporation Ltd. and others
                                                                    ...Respondents


CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present:     Ms. Abha Rathore, Advocate for the appellant.

             Ms. Vibha Tewari, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for
             Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana
             for the respondents.

             ***

Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the question of

law raised in the present appeal is already covered by the judgment passed

by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in RSA No. 2163 of 2010 titled as

Satyabir Singh Vs. Haryana Tourism Corporation and others, decided

on 04.05.2012. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that

Satyabir Singh, who was similarly situated as the appellant herein, had also

claimed same relief, which was allowed in his favour, which proceedings

have attained finality and Satyabir Singh has already been extended the

relief as being claimed for by the appellant herein.

Learned counsel for the appellant argues that on the basis of

judgment in Satyabir Singh's case (supra), a writ petition being CWP No.

2256 of 2015 titled as Sunil Kumar Gupta Vs. Haryana Tourism

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061316

RSA-1362-2021 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:061316

Corporation and others, has also been allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court vide order dated 04.12.2018 and the same relief has also been

extended by the department to Sunil Kumar Gupta, hence, denying of the

said relief to the appellant herein is discriminatory and arbitrary.

Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to

controvert the statement of learned counsel for the appellant that the

question of law raised in the present appeal is already covered by the

judgment in Satyabir Singh's case (supra) and Sunil Kumar Gupta's case

(supra) and the said relief has already been extended to the similarly

situated employees.

Keeping in view the fact that the question of law raised in the

present appeal is covered by the judgment in Satyabir Singh's case (supra),

the present appeal is allowed in terms of Satyabir Singh's case (supra) and

the judgment and decree of the courts below are set-aside being contrary to

the settled principle of law on the issue concerned keeping in view the law

laid down in Satyabir Singh's case (supra).

CM-5464-C-2021

As the main appeal has been allowed, the present application

stands disposed of accordingly.

April 29, 2023                         (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan                                         JUDGE

             Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

             Whether reportable                : Yes/No




                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:061316

                                      2 of 2