COCP-3173 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 109 Randhir Singh and others Dr. Rippudaman Singh CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. respondents have failed to comply with the order dated (Annexure P ‘Randhir Singh and others was directed as under: It is submitted dues of the petitioner 2. submission of learned counsel for the reply dated to submit that 3173-2023 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP Date of Decision: Randhir Singh and others Versus Dr. Rippudaman Singh Dhillon CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Jawahar Lal Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Naveen Kumar, Addl. A.G., Haryana. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents have failed to comply with the order dated (Annexure P-1) passed by the Writ Court in CWP Randhir Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others was directed as under:- “[5] In the light of statement of counsel for the parties and the position as noted above, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to grant consequential benefits as admissible to the petitioners as per thei reconsideration of their claim within the aforementioned period of time.” It is submitted that despite the clear direction of the Hon’ble Writ Court, dues of the petitioners have not been released to them. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and reply dated 20.08.2024, filed by way of to submit that upon examination, it was found th IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP-3173-2023 Date of Decision: 24.09.2025 .… Petitioners .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA , Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Naveen Kumar, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents have failed to comply with the order dated 28.08.2019 1) passed by the Writ Court in CWP-28382-2013, titled as State of Haryana and others’, wherein it In the light of statement of counsel for the parties and the position as noted above, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to grant consequential benefits as admissible to the petitioners as per their entitlement on reconsideration of their claim within the aforementioned clear direction of the Hon’ble Writ Court, released to them. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the the petitioners and refers para No. 5 of 20.08.2024, filed by way of affidavit of Dr. R.S. Dhillon, it was found that in compliance of the Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 28.08.2019 2013, titled as it In the light of statement of counsel for the parties and the position as noted above, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to grant consequential benefits r entitlement on reconsideration of their claim within the aforementioned clear direction of the Hon’ble Writ Court, Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the para No. 5 of affidavit of Dr. R.S. Dhillon, at in compliance of the RISHU KATARIA 2025.09.25 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. COCP-3173 order of the Writ Court, petitioner No. 1 Master, GHS Kalanaur, Yamuna Nagar dated 03.04.2024 w.e.f. 01.01.2015 re-fixed from Yamuna Nagar order dated ₹1,12,571/- arrears likely to be paid to the petitioner recovery of an amount of further submitted that a letter dated issued to petitioner No. 1 asking him to deposit the said amount i Government Treasury to enable the respondent to take further action regarding payment of arrears to petitioner No. 1. out by learned counsel for the respo 20.01.2017 (Annexure P in order to release the arrears to petitioner No. 1 writing was mandatory to be taken from him. However, petitioner No. 1 had refused to 3. that total arrears petitioner No. 2 has failed to give the undertaking which is mandatory as per letter dated cannot be released to petitioner No. 2. 4. respondent that petitioner No. 3 3173-2023 -2- order of the Writ Court, petitioner No. 1 Master, GHS Kalanaur, Yamuna Nagar, was granted 3 03.04.2024 w.e.f. 01.01.2015 and pay of the petitioner No. 1 fixed from ₹95,800/- to ₹96,600/- by the District Education Officer, Yamuna Nagar. It was further found that due to re order dated 08.04.2024 (Annexure R-2) - was due to be recovered from petitioner No. 1 and t arrears likely to be paid to the petitioner are recovery of an amount of ₹11,801/- was due towards petitioner No. 1. further submitted that a letter dated 08.05.2024 issued to petitioner No. 1 asking him to deposit the said amount i Government Treasury to enable the respondent to take further action regarding payment of arrears to petitioner No. 1. by learned counsel for the respondent 20.01.2017 (Annexure P-4) issued by the Finance Department, Haryana, in order to release the arrears to petitioner No. 1 was mandatory to be taken from him. However, petitioner No. 1 had refused to give the said undertaking. As regards petitioner No. 2- that total arrears payable to petitioner No. 2 petitioner No. 2 has failed to give the undertaking which is mandatory as per letter dated 20.01.2017 (Annexure R cannot be released to petitioner No. 2. Further, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent that petitioner No. 3-Balraj Singh order of the Writ Court, petitioner No. 1-Randhir Singh, Retd. Head was granted 3rd ACP vide order pay of the petitioner No. 1 was by the District Education Officer, . It was further found that due to re-fixation of pay vide 2), recovery of an amount of was due to be recovered from petitioner No. 1 and total are ₹1,00,770/-, therefore, the net was due towards petitioner No. 1. It is 08.05.2024 (Annexure R-3) was issued to petitioner No. 1 asking him to deposit the said amount in the Government Treasury to enable the respondent to take further action regarding payment of arrears to petitioner No. 1. However, it was pointed ndent that as per letter dated the Finance Department, Haryana, in order to release the arrears to petitioner No. 1, an undertaking or was mandatory to be taken from him. However, petitioner No. 1 -Ashok Kumar, it is submitted petitioner No. 2 is ₹5,48,775/-. However, petitioner No. 2 has failed to give the undertaking which is mandatory as 20.01.2017 (Annexure R-4), therefore, the said arrears pointed out by learned counsel for the Balraj Singh, had fraudulently got his pay Randhir Singh, Retd. Head vide order was by the District Education Officer, vide , recovery of an amount of otal , therefore, the net It is was n the Government Treasury to enable the respondent to take further action However, it was pointed as per letter dated the Finance Department, Haryana, or was mandatory to be taken from him. However, petitioner No. 1 Ashok Kumar, it is submitted . However, petitioner No. 2 has failed to give the undertaking which is mandatory as , therefore, the said arrears pointed out by learned counsel for the fraudulently got his pay RISHU KATARIA 2025.09.25 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. COCP-3173 fixed @ ₹ enquiry is pending against petitioner No. 3. 5. 6. for the respondent which remain uncontroverted, as the petitioners have not filed any replication to be passed in the present petition 7. 8. 24.09.2025 rishu 3173-2023 -3- ₹96,600/- by giving wrong date of enquiry is pending against petitioner No. 3. Heard. In view of the above submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent which remain uncontroverted, as the petitioners have not filed any replication to the said reply, no further direction is required to be passed in the present petition; and the same Rule stands discharged. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. .09.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable date of date of promotion and an enquiry is pending against petitioner No. 3. In view of the above submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent which remain uncontroverted, as the petitioners have to the said reply, no further direction is required the same is hereby disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No In view of the above submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent which remain uncontroverted, as the petitioners have to the said reply, no further direction is required RISHU KATARIA 2025.09.25 19:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.