Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kehar Ali And Others vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 10 February, 2012
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.2472 of 2012
Date of Decision : February 10, 2012.
Kehar Ali and others .....Petitioners
versus
The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
Present : Mr.Vikas Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Ms.Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
---
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
Notice of motion.
Ms.Monica Chhibber Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
Let four copies of the writ petition be supplied to the learned State counsel during the course of day failing which the order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution.
In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage.
The petitioners seek a mandamus to direct the respondents to grant them the benefit of three advance increments on acquiring the higher qualifications, which has been withdrawn by the respondents without any CWP No.2472 of 2012 [2] notice or giving opportunity of hearing.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that the controversy involved in this case stands settled by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 1.12.2009 rendered in CWP No.738 of 2009 (Manjeet Kaur and others versus The State of Punjab and others) which has already been considered by the respondents vide an order dated 28.4.2011 (Annexure P-14) and necessary relief was granted to the petitioner in that case.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of relief sought in this writ petition, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of the decision of this court in Manjeet Kaur's case (supra) as well as the order dated 28.4.2011. In case the petitioners' claim is found covered under the aforesaid decisions, the consequential benefits shall be given. However, if the respondents find that the claim of the petitioners is distinguishable, they shall dispose of it by passing a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
Dasti.
February 10, 2012 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE