Punjab-Haryana High Court
Renu Bala vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 15 July, 2022
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
209 CWP-6660-2020
Date of decision : 15.07.2022
RENU BALA
...... Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
***
Present :- Mr. B. K. Bagri, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. R. S. Budhwar, Additional AG, Haryana.
***
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit as granted to the similarly situated employees, who had approached this Court by filing CWP No.9347 of 2016 titled Jagat Singh Yadav and others Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 20.02.2017.
Learned counsel submits that the benefit is not being extended to the petitioner despite the fact that the petitioner is similarly situated only on the ground that the petitioner was not party to the said petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that keeping in view the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.4382 of 2002 titled Satbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, once a question of law has been settled by the Court, the same needs to be implemented qua all the others without forcing each and everyone to the Court. Hence, the respondents are liable to be directed to grant the petitioner the benefit as extended to the 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 19-07-2022 23:13:25 ::: CWP-6660-2020 :2:
similarly situated employees, who were petitioners in CWP No.9347 of 2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already raised his grievance in his representation dated 20.04.2018 (Annexure P-3) which is still pending consideration with the respondents and the petitioner will be satisfied, at this stage, in case a direction is issued to respondents to decide the said representation in a time bound manner by passing an appropriate speaking order.
Learned State counsel raises no objection in deciding the representation dated 20.04.2018 (Annexure P-3) in a time bound manner by passing an appropriate speaking order.
In view of the request made, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the claim being made by the petitioner in representation 20.04.2018 (Annexure P-3), respondent No. 2 is directed to decide the representation dated 20.04.2018 (Annexure P-3) by passing a speaking order within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of copy of this order and in case, after passing the speaking order, the petitioner if found entitled for any relief, the same be extended to her within a period of four weeks thereafter.
Present writ petition stands disposed of.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
15.07.2022
rimpal
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable : No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 19-07-2022 23:13:26 :::