Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court:  This writ petition was filed before the Bench of Jitendra Chauhan under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for directing the State to take appropriate action against respondents under Sections 51 and 53 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.

Petitioner, Panch filed an application against the respondent for embezzlement of panchayat funds in connivance with other respondents whereby enquiry was initiated against him but the same was not concluded. Petitioner thus prayed that a direction should be issued to Deputy Commissioner, Hisar to take a final view in the matter within a specified time.

High Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, Hisar to take a final view on the applications within a specified time period without going to the merits of the case. If the benefit claimed by petitioner is admissible to him, in such case consequential benefits should be allowed to them and in case of the contrary, a speaking order to be passed. [Mohar Singh v. State of Haryana, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 369, decided on 10-04-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu & Kashmir High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Sanjeev Kumar, J., dismissed a writ petition whereby the petitioner sought directions against respondents for granting him the benefit of Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Revised) Pay Rules, 1973 (the 1973 Rules) with effect from the date of his first appointment in the year with consequential benefits of subsequent pay revisions.

The main issue that arose before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefits under the 1973 Rules.

The Court observed that the petitioner did not raise any objection when he was regularized initially. Further, the petitioner did not raise any objection with regard to the timely pay scale revisions which were given to him and it was only after the High Court decided a petition filed by some other aggrieved persons who were somewhat similarly situated as the petitioner, that the petitioner raised his voice. The Court observed that the petitioner was nothing but a fence sitter who was waiting for the outcome of an ongoing litigation. The Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, wherein It was held that when a specific group of employees are given a benefit by the Court it shall apply to all the persons similarly situated to the litigants, however, there is an exception if the similarly situated persons are liable for laches and delays as well as acquiescence.

The Court held that the petitioner remained silent for a good amount of time and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that his counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts. Hence the petitioner cannot claim the benefit conferred upon the employees who were similarly situated to him and who had successfully won the litigation. Resultantly, the writ petition was dismissed by the Court. [Mangat Ram v. State of J&K,2018 SCC OnLine J&K 712, order dated 05-10-2018]