Raghubir Singh And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 18910 P&H

                                                   Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:142123




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

(104)                                    CM-15728-CWP-2023 in/and
                                         CWP-21238-2017
                                         Date of Decision : 02.11.2023

Raghubir Singh and others
                                                                 ...Petitioners

                                  Versus

State of Haryana and another
                                                              ...Respondents


CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present:     Mr. M.S. Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioners.

             Mr. Pankaj Middha, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

             ***

Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)

CM-15728-CWP-2023

Present application has been filed for allowing the applicants

as petitioner Nos. 53 to 64 in the present writ petition.

Notice of the application to counsel for the respondents.

Mr. Pankaj Middha, learned Additional Advocate General,

Haryana, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the

respondent-State and raises no objection for the grant of prayer as made

in the present application.

Keeping in view the above, the present application is

allowed and applicants are impleaded as petitioners No. 53 to 64 in the

writ petition. Amended memo of parties is taken on record.

1 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:142123

Learned counsel for the parties submit that keeping in view

the fact that the pleadings are complete, the hearing of the main case be

preponed to today.

Keeping in view the joint request, the main case is taken up

for hearing today.

CWP-21238-2017

1. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is

that they have not been paid the salary for the period they have worked,

which amount has been sent by the Union of India to the State

Government.

2. After the filing of the writ petition, the respondents have

filed the reply, wherein, the respondents have stated that all the amount

for which the petitioners were entitled, have already been given to them.

It has been further mentioned that in an earlier litigation, which had gone

upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, with regard to the claim of

salary, the petitioners were directed to approach the Civil Court, whereas

the present petition has been filed by the petitioners.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the record with their able assistance.

4. In the present petition, the petitioners are claiming salary for

discharging the duties with the respondent-State of Haryana. It is a

conceded position that in an earlier litigation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

of India had passed an order on 24.07.2007, which reads as under :-

"Keeping in view the fact that the Health Scheme sponsored by the Central Government has been discontinued by the State Government, hence no directions can be issued

2 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:142123

to the respondents to re-employ the petitioners against the said scheme. As far as any arrears of pay are concerned, the petitioners may seek their remedy by filing a civil suit, if permissible under the law.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of."

5. A bare perusal of the same would show that with regard to

the arrears of pay, the petitioners were directed to seek their remedy by

filing a civil suit, if permissible under the law. Rather than availing the

said remedy, the present petition has been filed and that too involving a

disputed question of fact as the stand taken by the respondents is that

whatever amount the petitioners were entitled for, have already been

released in their favour. Keeping in view the said fact, the present

petition involves the disputed question of facts.

6. It is a settled principle of law settled by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.2848 of 2021 titled as

Shubhas Jain vs. Rajeshwari Shivam and others, decided on

20.07.2021 that the High Court does not have the jurisdiction to decide

the disputed question of facts. As per the settled principle of law settled

by the Hon'ble Spureme Court of India, the disputed facts are to be

decided before the Civil Court and the High Court does not have the

jurisdiction to decide the same. The relevant paragraph of the said

judgment is as under:-

"26. It is well settled that the High Court exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not adjudicate hotly disputed questions of facts. It is not for the High Court to make a comparative assessment of conflicting technical reports and decide which one is acceptable."

3 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:142123

7. In the present case, the disputed question of facts arise as the

petitioners are claiming the salary for the period they have worked but

the respondents have stated in their reply that whatever amount the

petitioners were entitled for, have already been released in their favour,

hence, appropriate remedy before the petitioners is to prove the said fact

before the Civil Court in case, they intend to get the disputed question of

fact resolved.

8. The present petition is dismissed as the same is not

maintainable before the High Court involving the disputed question of

fact.

November 2nd, 2023                      (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan                                          JUDGE

             Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

             Whether reportable           : Yes/No




                                                   Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:142123

                               4 of 4