113 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DR. V.P. SINGH CH. CHARAN SINGH AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Present: Ms. Radhika Pathania, Advocate for Mr. Mr. Shreenath A. Khemka, Advocate for the respondent * SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA CM-7808-LPA For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of CM-7809-LPA Application is allowed and the appellant is exempted from filing the certified/typed copies of CWP LPA-3172-2024 (O&M) 1. The present LPA is preferred by the appellant dated 16.07.2024 whereby the learned Single Bench has dismissed Petition preferred by observations passed by the learned Single Bench whereby relief of granting Petition i.e. 05.09.2019. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: DR. V.P. SINGH V CH. CHARAN SINGH HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, HISAR AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Ms. Radhika Pathania, Advocate for Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Shreenath A. Khemka, Advocate for the respondent-University. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) LPA-2024 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 24 days in re-filing the appeal LPA-2024 Application is allowed and the appellant is exempted from filing the certified/typed copies of CWP-25771 2024 (O&M) The present LPA is preferred by the appellant dated 16.07.2024 whereby the learned Single Bench has dismissed Petition preferred by him i.e. CWP-25771-2019 and for setting aside the observations passed by the learned Single Bench whereby relief of granting of arrears for only 38 months prior to 05.09.2019. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-3172-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision:21st of April, 2025 ..…...Appellant (s) V/s. HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, HISAR .......Respondent(s) SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Ms. Radhika Pathania, Advocate for for the appellant. Mr. Shreenath A. Khemka, Advocate For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Application is allowed and the appellant is exempted from 25771-2019. The present LPA is preferred by the appellant assailing order dated 16.07.2024 whereby the learned Single Bench has dismissed the Writ 2019 and for setting aside the observations passed by the learned Single Bench whereby, it restricted the 38 months prior to filing of the Writ Suresh Kumar 2025.04.25 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-3172-2024 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as there was no fault on the part of the appellant restrict the relief to only 3. We have considered the submissions record. 4. Although we find that Petition by the appellant is concerned, the same cannot be said to be in any manner delayed as the order which was sought to be quashed was passed on 08.04.2019 and the claim was for implementation of office order dated 20.06.2018. Therefore, Writ Petition having been filed by the appellant in the year 2019 cannot be said to be delay granted by the learned Single Bench does not warrant any interference as the respondent equivalent to the date when Accordingly, further directions were also issued to release consequential service and pensionary benefits 5. Thus, it cannot be said that the benefits would not be released in favour of the appellant have been limited only 6. In our opinion, t Bench cannot be said to be unjustified as it is a l when the higher i.e. 1989, and t 2024 (O&M) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as there was no fault on the part of the appellant/Writ Petitioner restrict the relief to only 38 months prior to the filing of the Writ Petition. We have considered the submissions Although we find that so far as the Petition by the appellant is concerned, the same cannot be said to be in any nner delayed as the order which was sought to be quashed was passed on 08.04.2019 and the claim was for implementation of office order dated Therefore, Writ Petition having been filed by the appellant in the year 2019 cannot be said to be delayed. However, we find that the relief granted by the learned Single Bench does not warrant any interference as the respondent-University had been directed to step equivalent to his junior counterpart w.e.f. the date anomaly arose i.e. when his junior counterpart had been granted the higher pay. Accordingly, further directions were also issued to release consequential service and pensionary benefits. Thus, it cannot be said that the benefits would not be released favour of the appellant/Writ Petitioner. It is only the actual arrears been limited only to 38 months and the remaining is notional In our opinion, the directions cannot be said to be unjustified as it is a l higher pay scale was granted to junior and the appellant’s representation was decided in the year 2018 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as there was no /Writ Petitioner, there was no occasion to onths prior to the filing of the Writ Petition. We have considered the submissions and carefully perused the so far as the preferring of the Writ Petition by the appellant is concerned, the same cannot be said to be in any nner delayed as the order which was sought to be quashed was passed on 08.04.2019 and the claim was for implementation of office order dated Therefore, Writ Petition having been filed by the appellant in However, we find that the relief granted by the learned Single Bench does not warrant any interference as University had been directed to step-up the appellant’s pay w.e.f. the date anomaly arose i.e. from had been granted the higher pay. Accordingly, further directions were also issued to release consequential Thus, it cannot be said that the benefits would not be released . It is only the actual arrears, which he remaining is notional. he directions issued by the learned Single cannot be said to be unjustified as it is a long period from the year pay scale was granted to junior counterpart of the appellant ’s representation was decided in the year 2018. Suresh Kumar 2025.04.25 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-3172-2024 No case for interference is same is dismissed 7. accordingly. April 21, 2025 Ess Kay Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable 2024 (O&M) No case for interference is thus made out. The LPA is misconceived and the dismissed accordingly. All pending applications in this [SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA [MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA , 2025 Whether speaking / reasoned : Whether Reportable : made out. The LPA is misconceived and the pending applications in this case are disposed of SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE [MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA] JUDGE : Yes / No : Yes / No Suresh Kumar 2025.04.25 11:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document