Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited vs Rajesh Kumar Jindal And Others on 23 February, 2012

Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, T.P.S. Mann

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                              LPA No.264 of 2012
                              Date of Decision:- February 23, 2012


Punjab State Power Corporation Limited,
Patiala
                                                              ... Appellant
                             Versus


Rajesh Kumar Jindal and others
                                                            ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
       HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

Present:    Mr. Parminderjeet Singh Khurana, Advocate,
            for the appellant.

            Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate,
            for the caveator.
                         ...

Satish Kumar Mittal, J. (Oral)

The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited has filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated November 11, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No.10117 of 1992) filed by the private respondents was allowed by passing the following order:-

"1. The issue involved in this case for parity of wages, who are Sub Fire Officers with the other persons, who are categorized within the same group earlier is answered by this Court already in C.W.P. No.9294 of 2010 dated 21.01.2010.

2. The writ petition is allowed on the same basis and the petitioners will be entitled to be paid arrears calculated within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order."

Learned counsel for the appellant very fairly conceded that against the decision dated January 21, 2010 given in CWP No.9294 of 2010, LPA No.713 of 2010 was filed by the appellant and the same was also dismissed vide order dated September 28, 2010. The said order has been challenged by the appellant by filing an SLP before the Supreme Court which is still pending.

Since the relief to the private respondents has been granted in view of the aforesaid decision, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order only on the ground that against the said order the SLP is pending before the Supreme Court.

Dismissed.

                                             (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)
                                                     JUDGE


February 23, 2012                                ( T. P. S. MANN )
vkg                                                     JUDGE