Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harbhajan Singh vs Union Territory,Chandigarh on 8 May, 2024
CWP-4502-1997 (O&M) 1 2IREPHHC OST
206
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-4502-1997 (O&M)
DECIDED ON: 08.05.2024
HARBHAJAN SINGH AND OTHERS __--...... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS
soeee RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.
Present: Mr. Anurag Chopra, Advocate, and
Mr. Himani Jamwal, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Advocate,
for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Tushar Gera, Advocate,
for respondent No.4.
SANJAY VASHISTH, J (ORAL)
1. Present writ petition is lying pending without any decision,
since the year 1997, which has been filed by five employees of the DAV
College, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh, (respondent No.4), seeking a direction
for grant of same pay scales to the petitioners w.e.f. 01.09.1978, as has
been granted to the persons similarly situated in other Government
colleges.
There is an additional prayer also, to issue a direction that
freezing date of 01.11.1979 be quashed and the benefit granted to the
employees promoted before 01.11.1979 be also extended to the
petitioners.
NEES einen
Punjab & Haryana Hi
Chandigarh
2. Mr. Anurag Chopra, Advocate, learned counsel for the
petitioners informs the Court that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have already
expired, during pendency of the present writ petition. Thus, pendency of
claim raised by the petitioners and that too, without any substantive
decision, is frustrating their rights and very purpose of filing of the writ
petition also gets defeated.
3. On being asked by the Court, counsel representing
respondent Nos.1 to 3, confirms that till date, no decision has been taken
by the respondent -- Administration. Therefore, relief claimed by the
petitioners cannot be directly entertained by the Court in its writ
jurisdiction.
Further submits that petitioners are, in fact, claiming parity
with their counter-parts working under the respondent -- Administration,
who are posted in the Government Colleges and performing similar
duties.
4. This Court is surprised to acknowledge the fact that
Administration has completely failed to take any substantive decision on
the claim raised by the petitioners, on either side.
5. At this stage, counsel for the petitioners submits that he
would be satisfied if, respondents are directed to decide the claim raised
through present writ petition, within some time bound manner because,
without any decision by the respondents, relief claimed by the petitioners
can not be examined by this Court at its first instance.
6. This Court has noticed the fact that present writ petition is
pending for the last 28-29 years, and the respondent -- Administration has
authenticity of this order/judgment
Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-4502-1997 (O&M) 3
not even taken any decision either side, on the relief/claim raised by the
petitioners or even in regard to the other employees who were/are posted
in the other similarly situated private colleges, vis-a-vis rights of the
employees posted in the Government colleges.
7. In conspectus of the above, present writ petition is
disposed of, with a direction that the petitioners would move a fresh
comprehensive representation along with supporting documents, thereby
substantiating their rights, within a period of one week from today, and
submit the same to respondent Nos.1 to 3.
In case, any such representation is submitted, same would be
considered and decided within next eight weeks from the date of
submission of the representation, by passing a speaking order, in
accordance with law and if permissible, by affording an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioners.
Let final decision be communicated to the petitioners
forthwith.
8. Needless to say that in case, it is decided that the petitioners
are entitled for the claimed relief, same would be extended to them,
without any unnecessary delay.
9. Disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
08.05.2024 JUDGE
Lavisha
Whether speaking/reasoned v Yes/Ne
Whether reportable ¥es/v No
authenticity of this order/judgment
