Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjay Dabas And Ors vs D.G.P. Haryana & Ors on 19 February, 2018
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No.19854 of 2014
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.19854 of 2014
Date of Decision: 19.02.2018
Sanjay Dabas and others ...Petitioners
Vs.
The Director General of Police,
Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Sunil K.Nehra, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Rajdeep Singh Cheema, Advocate,
for respondent No.5.
Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate,
for respondent No.6-CBSE.
****
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J. (Oral)
1. Without going into the merits of the claim seeking pay benefits under the 6th Pay Commission or the character of the respondent school this case would have to be remitted to the Educational Tribunal exercising territorial jurisdiction over the dispute. The designated authority in Haryana to hear cases of all disputes between the management and staff is the District Judge of the respective district/Sessions Divisions. There is ample judicial authority that disputes have to be sent to the Tribunal for determination which include the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Management of S.D. Model Senior Secondary School and another v. District Judge-cum-Service Tribunal and another, 2014 (1) S.C.T 652, the 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 03-03-2018 23:15:55 ::: CWP No.19854 of 2014 -2- Division Bench in LPA No.1172 of 2013 in case titled Governing Body/Managing Committee and another v. Punjab School Education Board and others, decided on July 08, 2013 and a number of Single Benches in CWP No.12904 of 2013, Sandeep Pilania v. Arya Pritinidhi Shabha, Dayanand Math, Rohtak and others, decided on September 01, 2017; CWP No.11506 of 2013, Kanchan Sharma v. State of Haryana and others, decided on September 20, 2017; CWP No.58 of 2014, Sumit Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others, decided on November 04, 2016 and lastly CWP No.4177 of 2015, Dr. Mukul Gupta v. Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited and others, decided on May 29, 2015 which order and judgment is specific regarding financial benefits in terms of recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission.
2. As a result, the file is remitted to the learned District Judge, Karnal for adjudicating the dispute.
3. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Karnal on 16.03.2018.
4. The petition stands disposed of.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA)
JUDGE
19.02.2018
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 03-03-2018 23:15:56 :::