Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amarjeet Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others on 6 May, 2024
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia, Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062240-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
111, 112, 115, 118 and 120 2024:PHHC:062240-DB
LPA Nos.1118, 1119, 1125, 1134 and 1142 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 06.05.2024
Amarjeet Kaur .....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Ms. R.K. Grewal, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Saurav Khurana, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
****
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral)
Delay Applications
1. Applications for condonation of delay of 44-81 days in filing the
appeals are allowed, in view of averments made in the applications duly supported
by affidavits.
2. Delay condoned.
3. CMs stand disposed of.
Main Cases
4. The present judgment shall dispose of 5 appeals as all the appeals
arise out of similar judgments dated 01.12.2023 passed by the learned Single
Judge in various cases, lead case of which is CWP-26937-2023, Amarjeet Kaur
vs. State of Punjab and others. The other appeals also arise out of orders passed in
other writ petitions decided on the same reasoning.
5. In principle, the relief claimed as such was the benefit of pay fixation
from the date the appellant was appointed as a teaching fellow i.e. from
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062240-DB
LPA Nos.1118, 1119, 1125, 1134 and 1142 of 2024 (O&M) -2-
2024:PHHC:062240-DB
12.03.2012 which is in pursuance of the advertisement dated 05.09.2007 whereby,
they were to be appointed on consolidated salary @ Rs.4,550/- per month. The
benefit of regularization having been granted from 21.05.2015 was subject matter
of consideration instead of from the date of joining.
6. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition on the
first occasion, held that the principle is that the pay scale shall be admissible only
from the date of regularization, which opinion was formulated without calling for
the reply. The review application i.e. RA-CW-38-2024 was dismissed on
01.02.2024 while referring to the cut off date i.e. 01.04.2011 and candidates
appointed thereafter and, thus, it was held that there was no factual error in the
order.
7. It is now pointed out that even though it had been brought to the
notice of the learned Single Judge that similar matters were pending at admission
stage and the learned Single Judge proceeded to decide the said matters without
clubbing the same. It is pointed out that CWP-25452-2016, Sukhbir Singh and
another vs. State of Punjab and others alongwith CWP No. 25579 of 2016, CWP
No.24137 of 2017, CWP No.16173 of 2018 and CWP No.26592 of 2019
pertaining to the years 2017, 2018 and 2019 are also pending for 17.07.2024.
8. Counsel for the appellant has also pointed out that on an earlier
occasion also, Maghar Singh had approached this Court by filing CWP-18275-
2013, Maghar Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and others and the learned
Single Judge had given liberty on 15.07.2015 (Annexure P-11) as such to
challenge the order whereby the financial benefits were being denied from the date
of their joining. It is pointed out that the appellants are physically handicapped
persons and on an earlier occasion as such, had to approach this Court, as their
appointments had got delayed while referring to the order passed in CWP-12886-
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062240-DB
LPA Nos.1118, 1119, 1125, 1134 and 1142 (O&M) -3-
2024:PHHC:062240-DB
2010, Jagjit Kaur and others vs. State of Punjab and others (Annexure P-2). It is,
thus, submitted that it is on this account, there was a delay in their appointments
and the benefits of regularization should be granted from the date they were
actually appointed. It is submitted that there are also similarly situated persons,
one of which being Balbir Kaur, who has been granted the benefit, which aspect
would also have to be clarified by the State.
9. Keeping in view the fact that similar writ petitions are pending and
pleadings were not complete before the learned Single Judge, we are of the
considered opinion that in the absence of the factual matrix being clarified, the
findings which have come would stand in the way of the other litigants also since
the learned Single Judge decided on first principles. The writ court being the
court of original jurisdiction, it would have been appropriate if response had been
taken or the matters would have been adjudicated alongwith the connected
matters.
10. In such circumstances, we are constrained to set aside the order dated
01.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge and remand the matters for fresh
consideration. Let the present matters be also heard alongwith the said matters i.e.
CWP-25452-2016 and other connected matters on 17.07.2024. Needless to say,
we have not commented on the merits of the case since the pleadings were never
completed. The learned Single Judge will take all factors into consideration.
11. Letters patent appeals stand disposed of in the abovesaid terms.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
06.05.2024 (VIKAS BAHL)
shivani JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking Yes
Whether reportable Yes
3 of 3
