Rakesh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

High Court Of Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh 28 May 2014 CWP No. 10784 of 2014 (2014) 05 P&H CK 0483
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

CWP No. 10784 of 2014

Hon'ble Bench

Augustine George Masih, J

Advocates

Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate for the Appellant

Final Decision

Disposed Off

Judgement Text

Translate:

Augustine George Masih, J.@mdashPetitioners have approached this Court with a prayer that they should be granted the minimum of the pay scale meant for the post from the date of their initial appointment and for grant of consequential benefits.

2. The claim of the petitioners is stated to be covered in their favour by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 22516 of 2012 titled as Mohinder Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 01.04.2013 (Annexure P-1). Placing their claim on this judgment, petitioners have served a legal notice dated 09.01.2014 (Annexure P-2) upon the Director General, Transport Department, Haryana-respondent No. 2 but till date, no benefit has been conferred or decision conveyed to them.

3. Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners, at this stage, would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the Director General, Transport Department, Haryana-respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the legal notice dated 09.01.2014 (Annexure P-2) served by the petitioners within some specified time.

4. In the light of the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and without going into the merits of the case or commenting thereon, the present petition is disposed of with directions to the Director General, Transport Department, Haryana-respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the legal notice dated 09.01.2014 (Annexure P-2) served by the petitioners within a period of four months'' from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

5. In case the claim of the petitioners is accepted, the consequential benefits, if any, be released to them, in accordance with law, within a further period of one month. In case the claim of the petitioners is not to be accepted, a well-reasoned and speaking order be passed and conveyed to them forthwith.

From The Blog
Calcutta High Court Quashes EPFO Order Denying Higher Pension to SAIL Staff, Calls It ‘Abuse of Law’
Nov
21
2025

Court News

Calcutta High Court Quashes EPFO Order Denying Higher Pension to SAIL Staff, Calls It ‘Abuse of Law’
Read More
Supreme Court Rejects Quota for Civil Judges in District Judge Promotions, Issues Fresh Rules on Seniority
Nov
21
2025

Court News

Supreme Court Rejects Quota for Civil Judges in District Judge Promotions, Issues Fresh Rules on Seniority
Read More