112 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Ayyub Khan and State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Present: Dr. Jaiveer Singh Malik, Advocate for the petitioners. (through video conferencing). Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. AG, Haryana. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) 1. Notice of motion. 2. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. AG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the parties are ad in the present peti Singh Tanwar vs. State of Haryana, connected cases, decided on 24.04.2025 “ same would have no impediment in disposing of all these writ petitions as the claim of the writ petitioners has to be decided finally now in terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court on 20.02.2025 in Miscellaneous application Dairy No.2400 of 2024 in miscellaneous applications titled as "Union of India and another versus M. Siddaraj (supra). IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-19026 Date of Decision: Ayyub Khan and others Vs. State of Haryana and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Dr. Jaiveer Singh Malik, Advocate for the petitioners. (through video conferencing). Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. AG, Haryana. *** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. AG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the parties are ad in the present petition stands finally adjudicated by this Court in Singh Tanwar vs. State of Haryana, CWP No.14627 connected cases, decided on 24.04.2025, wherein, this Court held as under: “9. We have noticed the aforesaid submissions. However, the same would have no impediment in disposing of all these writ petitions as the claim of the writ petitioners has to be decided finally now in terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court on 20.02.2025 in Miscellaneous application Dairy No.2400 of 2024 in Civil Appeal No.3933 of 2023 with connected miscellaneous applications titled as "Union of India and another versus M. Siddaraj (supra). IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 19026-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.07.2025 …Petitioners …Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Dr. Jaiveer Singh Malik, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. AG, Haryana. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. AG, Haryana, accepts notice on Learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that the issue raised tion stands finally adjudicated by this Court in Mahavir CWP No.14627-2024 and other , wherein, this Court held as under:- 9. We have noticed the aforesaid submissions. However, the same would have no impediment in disposing of all these writ petitions as the claim of the writ petitioners has to be decided finally now in terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court on 20.02.2025 in Miscellaneous application Dairy No.2400 of Civil Appeal No.3933 of 2023 with connected miscellaneous applications titled as "Union of India and another Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. AG, Haryana, accepts notice on the issue raised Mahavir 2024 and other 9. We have noticed the aforesaid submissions. However, the same would have no impediment in disposing of all these writ petitions as the claim of the writ petitioners has to be decided finally now in terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court on 20.02.2025 in Miscellaneous application Dairy No.2400 of Civil Appeal No.3933 of 2023 with connected miscellaneous applications titled as "Union of India and another RAJESH KUMAR 2025.07.14 16:07 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-19026-2025 (O&M) [2] 10. We, therefore, dispose of all these writ petitions and allow them in the same terms as above and with further directions to the Administration-respondents to pass specific orders taking into consideration the facts of each case. For the said purpose, we allow the State Government to take decision within a period of two months henceforth as all of the petitioners are already retired and their retiral benefits would be accordingly required to be adjusted and released. 11. The State authorities shall also take into consideration any policy decision which the State Government may take with respect to the persons, who retired having put in more than six months and less than one year of service in their last year of tenure.:” 4. In view of the above, this writ petition is decided mutatis mutandis and the necessary exercise shall be completed within two months henceforth. 5. All pending misc. application(s) also stand disposed of. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE 11.07.2025 rajesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No RAJESH KUMAR 2025.07.14 16:07 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.