Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwan Singh vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. ... on 21 October, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137740
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. No. 236 CWP-22729-2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision:21.10.2024
Balwan Singh ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present: Mr. Shivam Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Gaur, Advocate for the respondents.
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J.(ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for quashing of the impugned order dated 19.09.2018
(Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.2, vide which claim of the petitioner
for stepping up of his pay with the pay of respondent No.6, who is junior to the
petitioner, has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner
has been denied the benefit of ACP and his junior has been granted higher pay.
He further submits that the impugned order dated 19.09.2018, which is non-
speaking order, has been passed wherein the petitioner has been denied the
aforesaid benefit. He also submits that now the matter for fixation of pay has
been revived and submitted that in case the petitioner has been denied the
benefit, a speaking order has to be passed by the respondents by giving the
entire facts.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has
supplied a copy of detailed chart to explain as to how the petitioner has been
denied the benefit of stepping up of pay. Learned counsel for the respondents
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137740
has submitted that it is correct that in the impugned order (Annexure P-4),
which is not reasoned order and now he has supplied a list of entire chart of
both i.e. the petitioner and respondent No.6 and liberty may be granted to the
respondents-competent authority to pass a speaking order in accordance with
law by affording an opportunity of hearing.
4. Mr. Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the petitioner is also entitled for the benefit of ACP in view of law laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 2007(2) S.C.T. 476, titled as Commissioner
and Secretary to Govt. of Haryana and others vs. Ram Sarup Ganda and
others, (Annexure P-2) and has also submitted that when speaking order is to
be passed, then the aforesaid judgment may also be kept into consideration by
the respondents.
5. In view of the above, the present petition is partly allowed and the
impugned order dated 19.09.2018 (Annexure P-4) is hereby set aside and
respondent No.2-Superintending Engineer/competent authority is directed to
pass a detailed order by giving the entire facts as to how the petitioner has been
denied especially in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. of Haryana and others' (supra) by
affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his counsel, and a fresh
order be passed after due application of mind, within a period of four months
from today.
( JASGURPREET SINGH PURI )
JUDGE
21.10.2024
dinesh
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
2 of 2
