Sada Ram Punia vs State Of Haryana And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 9974 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sada Ram Punia vs State Of Haryana And Others on 8 May, 2024

                                     Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063901




CWP No.10615 of 2024                                                           -1-

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH
125
                                         *****

CWP No.10615 of 2024 Date of Decision : 8.5.2024

Sada Ram Punia ..... Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

Present: Mr. Balbir Kumar Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner

Mr. Rohit Arya, DAG, Haryana

---

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J. (ORAL):

The petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of

mandamus directing the respondents to decide legal notice dated

21.4.2023, Annexure P-11, and to grant annual increment by fixing the

notional pay as per 7th Pay Commission, with effect from 1.1.2016, revise

the retiral benefits and release the arrears thereof alongwith interest.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that at this stage,

the petitioner will be satisfied in case his pending representation dated

30.12.2023, Annexure P-13, is considered by the respondents keeping in

view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.6185 of

2020 titled The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and others v. C.P.

Mundinamani and others, dated 11.4.2023, Annexure P-7, in a specified

manner.

3. Notice of motion.

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063901

4. Learned State counsel, appearing on advance notice, contends

that the pending representation shall be considered and decided

expeditiously.

5. In view thereof, without going into the merits of the case, the

petition is disposed of with a direction to the second

respondent/Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, to consider

and decide the petitioner's pending representation dated 30.12.2023, in

light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in C.P. Mundinamani

case (supra), within a period of three months from the date of receiving a

certified copy of this order.

6. In case the order is not passed within the stipulated period, the

officer concerned shall pay costs of ₹25,000 to the petitioner.

(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE 8.5.2024 Ashwani

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

2 of 2