Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naresh Kumar Kansal vs State Of Haryana And Others on 13 March, 2024
2024:PHHC:035571
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.: 109
Civil Writ Petition No.5779 of 2024
Date of Decision: March 13, 2024
Naresh Kumar Kansal
..... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Haryana & others
..... RESPONDENT(S)
...
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA
...
PRESENT: - Mr. Vipul Sachdeva, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Additional Advocate General,
Haryana.
. . .
Tribhuvan Dahiya, J (Oral)
The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of
certiorari quashing the order dated 18.01.2024, Annexure P-9, passed by the
second respondent, whereby the difference in remuneration claimed by the
petitioner has been declined.
2 It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner was engaged as Extension Lecturer after retirement from service in
the Department, from 02.11.2019 to 17.09.2022. He was paid remuneration at
the rate of ` 35,400 per month in terms of policy guidelines dated 04.03.2020.
Relying upon a judgment of this Court rendered in Civil Writ Petition
No.15114 of 2021, titled Dr. Balwinder Singh & another vs. State of Haryana
& others, it is contended that Clause 11 of the policy guidelines providing for
lower remuneration of ` 35,400 to the retired Extension Lecturers (as
2024:PHHC:035571
compared to ` 57,700 for others) has been struck down, accordingly, the
petitioner is entitled to arrears of remuneration at the rate of ` 57,700 per
month.
3 Learned State counsel, appearing on advance notice, points
out that the petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing Civil Writ
Petition No.6774 of 2021, titled Naresh Kumar Kansal vs. State of Haryana
& others, claiming the similar relief as claimed in the instant petition without
challenging Clause 11 of the policy guidelines dated 04.03.2020. The petition
was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 23.03.2021, against it he filed
Letters Patent Appeal No.1157 of 2021, which was also dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one, vide order dated 20.01.2022.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review application, RA-CW-27 of 2022,
which was dismissed vide order dated 02.03.2022. Therefore, the petitioner is
not entitled to the relief claimed.
4 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent
that the petitioner worked as Extension Lecturer from 02.11.2019 to
17.09.2022, and was paid remuneration for the period in terms of the policy
guidelines as applicable at the relevant time. The petition seeking higher
remuneration that is being sought by way of the instant petition was declined
by this Court by dismissing the writ petition vide order dated 23.03.2021. The
review application against the order also stands dismissed. Merely because
this Court, in Dr. Balwinder case (supra), declared Clause 11 of the policy
guidelines, dated 04.03.2020, illegal and irrational, will not give any cause to
the petitioner to seek higher remuneration for the period he has already
worked. The judgment relied upon was also passed on 21.07.2023, subsequent
to relieving of the petitioner from service.
2024:PHHC:035571
5 In view thereof, there is no ground to entertain the petition.
6 Dismissed.
(Tribhuvan Dahiya)
Judge
March 13, 2024
avin
Whether Speaking/ Reasoned: Yes/ No
Whether Reportable: Yes/ No
