Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satnam Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 6 May, 2024
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia, Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061885-DB
Neutral Citation No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(103) LPA-1760-2023 (O&M)
Decided on : 06.05.2024
Satnam Singh & others
......Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Punjab & others ......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr.Amrik Singh, Advocate, for the appellant(s).
Mr.Saurav Khurana, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
CM-4423-LPA-2023
1. Notice in the application for condoning the delay of 51 days in
filing the present appeal.
2. Mr.Khurana accepts notice on behalf of the State.
3. Accordingly, in view of the averments made in the application,
duly supported by affidavit of applicant-appellant No.1, same is allowed.
Delay of 51 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
4. CM stands disposed of.
CM-4424-LPA-2023
5. Exemption application is allowed as prayed for.
6. CM stands disposed of.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061885-DB
7. Consideration in the present appeal is to the judgment passed by
the Learned Single Judge in CWP-12791-2023 whereby the writ petition was
dismissed on 20.07.2023, rejecting the claim of allowances in lieu of
additional charges.
8. The Learned Single Judge relied upon Rule 2.10 Vol-3 Chapter-II
of the Punjab Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules to come to
the finding that the place of posting should be beyond 32 kms. It had also
been brought to the notice of the Learned Single Judge that similar matters
were pending and even an interim order had been passed. The Learned Single
Judge held that interim orders would not be binding but chose not to attach
said cases with the present case though he had discretion not to grant the said
benefit of interim protection and proceeded to dismiss the writ petition.
9. Counsel for the appellants submits that written statement was not
filed in the writ petition and thus, pleadings were not complete. In such
circumstances, it is submitted that the said judgment would also have an
adverse affect on the connected matters whereby the pleadings are being
completed and directions have been issued while referring to the interim
orders passed in CWP-22345-2022 on 28.09.2022 (Annexure P-18) and in
CWP-27049-2022 on 12.12.2022 (Annexure P-19). Counsel has also pointed
out further instructions reproduced in the present Letters Patent Appeal in
support of his claim of daily allowances though such a plea had not been taken
in the writ petition.
10. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that
parawise comments should also come from the State so that matter is decided
by the Writ Court which is in the nature of Original Jurisdiction on the basis of
the stance taken as per the relevant rules/instructions which would only have
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061885-DB
been cleared if reply had been taken from the State, more so, when connected
matters are stated to be pending for 30.05.2024.
11. Accordingly, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, we
allow the present appeal, set aside the order dated 20.07.2023 and restore the
writ petition to its original number and remand the matter to the Learned
Single Judge. CWP-12791-2023 shall be tagged along with CWP-22345 &
27049-2022. It is made clear that we have not observed on the merits of the
case and it would be open to the petitioners to amend the writ petition to take
additional plea(s) if they so desire.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(VIKAS BAHL)
06.05.2024 JUDGE
Sailesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
3 of 3
