Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sham Lal Singhal vs State Of Haryana And Others on 21 September, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 18876 of 2012
Date of Decision : 21.9.2012
Sham Lal Singhal ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present:- Mr. Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that he has not been granted the benefit of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 3358 of 1994, preferred by him which was allowed by this Court, vide order dated 19.1.2010 in same terms as CWP No. 18754 of 1991 titled as Gurdev Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others, decided on 18.1.2010. Claiming the said benefit, petitioner has submitted a representation dated 27.7.2012 (Annexure-P-8) to the Principal and Director, Moti Lal Nehru Sports College, Rai, Sonepat-respondent No. 3, copy whereof was sent to the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Sports Department-respondent No. 1. He contends that despite approaching the respondents on various occasions, no relief has been granted with regard to the grant of arrears, although the technical pay scale has been granted to the petitioner.
Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner, at this stage, would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the Principal and Director, Moti Lal Nehru School of Sports, Rai, Sonepat-respondent No. 3 to consider and CWP No. 18876 of 2012 -2- decide the representation of the petitioner dated 27.7.2012 (Annexure-P-8) within some specified time.
Without going into the merits of the case or commenting thereon, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the Principal and Director, Moti Lal Nehru School of Sports, Rai, Sonepat-respondent No. 3 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 27.7.2012 (Annexure-P-8), within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The decision so taken be conveyed to the petitioner forthwith.
In case the petitioner is held entitled to the benefit as claimed by him through his representation dated 27.7.2012 (Annexure-P-8), consequential benefits be granted to the petitioner within a further period of two months. If the claim as projected by the petitioner through his aforesaid representation is not to be accepted, then a speaking and well reasoned order be passed by respondent No. 3 and the same be conveyed to the petitioner forthwith.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 21.9.2012 sjks