209 KAMLESH KUMARI UNION OF INDIA GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS CORAM: Present: HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) 1. order dated 29.02.2016 (Annexure P filed by the petitioner has been rejected in terms of the order dated 18.09.2015 passed by the learned Chandigarh Bench, Ch of the petitioner for higher salary was based upon the benefit granted to Amrik Singh Bhatti 2. similarly situated as Amrik Singh Bhatti in CWP No.3548 of 2017 hence, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-15717 Date of Decision : KAMLESH KUMARI VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Moudgil, Senior Standing Counsel (joined through V.C.) with Mr. T.S Sullar, Junior Standing Counsel for the respondent-Union of India. *** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) In the present petition, the order dated 29.02.2016 (Annexure P-1) vide which the OA No.758/HR/2011 filed by the petitioner has been rejected in terms of the order dated 18.09.2015 passed by the learned Central Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short “the Tribunal”) of the petitioner for higher salary was based upon the benefit granted to Amrik Singh Bhatti, petitioner in CWP No.3548 of 2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits similarly situated as Amrik Singh Bhatti in CWP No.3548 of 2017 hence, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 15717-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision : 06.07.2026 ........Petitioner VERSUS THROUGH SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS ........Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate Mr. Arvind Moudgil, Senior Standing Counsel Mr. T.S Sullar, Junior Standing Counsel Union of India.. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned 1) vide which the OA No.758/HR/2011 filed by the petitioner has been rejected in terms of the order dated Central Administrative Tribunal, (for short “the Tribunal”) wherein, the claim of the petitioner for higher salary was based upon the benefit granted to one in CWP No.3548 of 2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner similarly situated as Amrik Singh Bhatti in CWP No.3548 of 2017 hence, THROUGH SECRETARY TO THE impugned 1) vide which the OA No.758/HR/2011 filed by the petitioner has been rejected in terms of the order dated Administrative Tribunal, wherein, the claim one the petitioner is similarly situated as Amrik Singh Bhatti in CWP No.3548 of 2017 hence, SAPNA GOYAL 2026.07.07 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15717-2019 (O&M) -2- the petitioner in the present petition should also be granted higher fixation of the salary. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that as the higher salary granted to Amrik Singh has already been considered and his salary has been re-fixed hence, the claim raised by the petitioner in the present case, is incorrect as, the person on whom the reliance is being placed, his salary has already been re-fixed by the Department. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute the said fact. 4. Keeping in view the fact that the reliance of claiming the higher pay scale was based upon the benefit granted to Amrik Singh in CWP No.3548 of 2017, which benefit granted has already been withdrawn by the respondents-Union of India hence, the claim raised by the petitioner in the present petition, cannot be accepted. 5. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. 6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE 06-07-2026 Sapna Goyal (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/ reasoned: YES Whether reportable: NO SAPNA GOYAL 2026.07.07 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document