Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satish Kumar And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 18 September, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123717
CWP NO.35814-2019(O&M) 1
and other connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(107/12) CWP NO.35814-2019(O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 18.09.2024
Rattan Lal Kataria and others ............Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others ..............Respondents
2. CWP No.2570-2020(O&M)
Jit Singh and others ............Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others .............Respondents
3. CWP No.5837-2020(O&M)
Vikas Deep and others ...................Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and another .............Respondents
4. CWP NO.7068-2020(O&M)
Nand Singh and others ................Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others ..................Respondents
5. CWP No.10903-2020(O&M)
Mandeep Singh and others .....................Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others ......................Respondents
6. CWP No. 11076-2020(O&M)
Baltej Singh and others ......................Petitioners
VERSUS
1 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2024 14:57:13 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123717
CWP NO.35814-2019(O&M) 2
and other connected cases
State of Punjab and others .......................Respondents
7. CWP No.12166-2020(O&M)
Narinder Kaur and others .......................Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others ......................Respondents
8. CWP No.15833-2020(O&M)
Satish Kumar and others ......................Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others .......................Respondents
9. CWP No.15-2021(O&M)
Des Raj and others ....................Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others ...................Respondents
10. CWP No. 107-2021(O&M)
Roshan Lal and others .......................Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others .....................Respondents
11. CWP No.3947-2024(O&M)
Nisha Bhagat and others ......................Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others .................Respondents
12. CWP No.3955-2024(O&M)
Jagmail Singh and others ....................Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others ..................Respondents
2 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2024 14:57:13 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123717
CWP NO.35814-2019(O&M) 3
and other connected cases
CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present Mr.Pawan Kumar Goklaney, Advocate,
for the petitioners in CWP No.35814-2019.
Mr.Sunny Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners
in CWP Nos.2570, 10903, 11076, 12166 & 15833 of 2020
CWP Nos. 15 and 107 of 2021 and
CWP Nos. 3947 and 3955 of 2024.
Mr. Gagandeep Sandhu, Advocate,
for the petitioners in CWP-5837-2020.
Mr. Nitesh Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners
in CWP-7068-2020.
Mr.TPS Chawla, Sr.DAG, Punjab.
***
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J, (ORAL)
1. By this common order, 12 writ petitions, the details of which have
been given in the heading, are being decided as all these petitions involve the
same question of law on similar facts.
2. In the present petitions, the grievance of the petitioners is that the
petitioners are entitled for the grant of increment on the basis of the Instructions
issued by the Govt. of Punjab dated 23.07.1957, (Annexure P-2) keeping in
view the fact that they had enhanced their qualification than the one required for
appointment to the post in question on which they were appointed/working.
3. Learned counsel submits that once, the petitioners have enhanced
their qualification, they are entitled for grant of benefit of increment.
4. Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply
wherein, they have stated that the Instructions dated 23.07.1957 were modified
on 19.02.1979.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that any employee, who was
in service, as on 19.02.1979 and had enhanced the qualification prior to the said
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123717
and other connected cases
date, were entitled for the benefit but once the Instructions dated 23.07.1957
were modified on 19.02.1979, any employee appointed after 19.02.1979 or any
employee, who might be in service but has improved his/her qualification after
19.02.1979, is not entitled for the grant of benefit.
6. Learned State counsel further submits that the similar question of
law came up for consideration before this Court in CWP-18574-2011 and other
connected cases, which were decided on 29.07.2024 titled Tarsem Singh and
others vs. State of Punjab and others, wherein by placing reliance upon the
judgment of the Division Bench in LPA No.2076 of 2014 titled Prem Singh
and others v. State of Punjab, decided on 26.09.2016. The said writ petitions
have been disposed of with the observation that the benefit under the
Instructions dated 23.07.1957 is only admissible to employee who was in
service on 19.02.1979 and had improved the qualification prior to the said date
and as the petitioners do not fulfil the said criteria, the present petitions are
liable to be dismissed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to controvert
the said argument that the question of law raised in the present petition is
already decided while passing order in Tarsem Singh's case (supra).
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that prior to the
judgment in Tarsem Singh's case (supra), certain Execution Petitions were
filed claiming the said benefit in the year 2012 and therefore, once the benefit
has been given to the employees, who improved their qualification after
19.02.1979 or were appointed after 19.02.1979, the benefit should be extended
to the petitioners as well.
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123717
and other connected cases
9. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order passed
in the Execution Petitions has already been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in SLP No.37753 of 2019, which fact has not been rebutted by
the learned counsel for the petitioners.
10. Further, once the Division Bench of this Court in Prem Singh's
case (supra), has already passed a comprehensive order, which has already
been relied upon by this Court while passing the order in Tarsem Singh's case
(supra), there is no justification not to decide the present petitions which also
involve the same question of law as passed in Tarsem Singh's case (Supra), in
same terms especially, when no differentiating fact in the present case as well as
in case of Tarsem Singh's case (supra) has been brought to the notice of this
Court by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the benefit
which is being claimed has been allowed in favour of one Om Singh, keeping in
view the order Annexure P-18 dated 18.04.2019.
12. It may be noticed that the interpretation to the order passed in Om
Singh's case, is incorrect. In the said order, also, it has been mentioned that in
case the petitioner has not attained the higher qualification upto 19.02.1979 or
he was not in service on the said date, the benefit cannot be given. The
interpretation being given to the order by the petitioner is not correct and the
same has also been disputed by the learned State counsel.
13. Keeping in view the above stated facts and in terms of the reasons
given in Tarsem Singh's case (supra), all the present petitions are dismissed.
14. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of along with this
judgment.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123717
and other connected cases
15. A photocopy of the order be placed on the files of aforementioned
connected petitions.
18.09.2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
mamta JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
6 of 6
