Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljeet Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 22 October, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138159
CWP-28556-2024 -1-
120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
***
CWP-28556-2024
Date of Decision: 22.10.2024
Baljeet Singh and others
..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present: Mr. V.D. Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to grant the benefit of one increment to the
petitioners on completion of 12 months of service on the day of retirement
i.e. on 1st July in the light of settled preposition of law as per judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2471 of 2023 titled as "The
Director (Admin & HR) KPTCL and others Vs. C.P. Mundinamani and
others" decided on 11.04.2023 (Annexure P-2) on the basis of which the
benefit has already been granted to other similarly situated persons vide
order dated 07.02.2024 (Annexure P-4) with all consequential benefits i.e.
revision of pension and all pensionary benefits along with arrears with
interest.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138159
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners were working in the respondent-Nigam and now they have got
retired. The grievance of the petitioners is that they were not granted one
annual increment on proportionate basis on account of the fact that they
were not in service on 1st July of the respective year due to their retirement
and submitted that the petitioners were entitled for the same as per law. He
further submitted that a legal notice was issued by the petitioners to the
respondent-Nigam on 09.06.2024 vide Annexure P-6, but neither the legal
notice has been replied to nor any action has been taken in this regard. He
submitted that at this stage, the petitioners will be satisfied in case the legal
notice (Annexure P-6) issued by them to the respondent-Nigam is directed to
be decided by passing of a speaking order in accordance with law and in a
time bound manner.
3. Notice of motion.
4. On the asking of the Court, Ms. Rajni Gupta, Additional
Advocate General, Haryana, who is present in Court, accepts notice on
behalf of the respondents and stated that she has no objection, in case, a
direction is issued to the respondents for considering and deciding the legal
notice issued by the petitioners vide Annexure P-6 in accordance with law
and within a fixed time frame.
5. In view of the aforesaid position, without calling for any reply
from the respondents and without observing anything on the merits of the
case, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent
No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the legal notice issued by
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138159
the petitioners vide Annexure P-6 dated 09.06.2024 strictly in accordance
with law by passing a well-reasoned speaking order within a period of three
months from today.
22.10.2024 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
Bhumika JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
2. Whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
