Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 87426 (PNJ)

RANBIR SINGH ROHILLA AND ORS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

CWP/22344/2025 · 2025-08-04

Tribhuvan Dahiya

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CWP-22344-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 131 CWP-22344-2025 Date of Decision: 04.08.2025 RANBIR SINGH ROHILLA AND OTHERS .... Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the petitioners. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL) The petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant one increment notionally and pensionary benefits to the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the law in this regard stands settled by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 24.04.2025, in CWP-14627-2024 titled Mahabir Singh Tanwar v. State of Haryana and others. At this stage, he submits that the petitioners will be satisfied in case they are permitted to make a fresh representation before the respondents raising the grievance as has been raised in this petition, and the same may be ordered to be decided within a specified period in terms of Mahabir Singh Tanwar case. 3. Notice of motion. 4. Mr. Amit Sahni, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/State and submits that in case any such representation is filed by the petitioners within two weeks from today, the same will be decided by the officer concerned, by passing a speaking order in accordance with law within a period of six months of receiving the Aman Dua 2025.08.06 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-22344-2025 2 representation, keeping in view the law laid down in Mahabir Singh Tanwar case supra. 5. In view of the statement made, learned counsel for the petitioners has no objection to the petition being disposed of in terms thereof. 6. Ordered accordingly. 7. In case the order is not passed within the stipulated period, the officer concerned shall pay costs of ₹50,000 to the petitioners. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE 04.08.2025 Ad Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Aman Dua 2025.08.06 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document