SONIA DAHIYA v. DEENBANDHU CHHOTU RAM UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, MURTHAL AND OTHERS
/16948/2026 · 2026-05-26
Tribhuvan Dahiya
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 23066 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 23066 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
CWP-16948-2026
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No. 118
CWP-16948-2026
Decided on:26.05.2026 Sonia Dahiya
. . . Petitioner Versus
Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science and Technology, Murthal, Sonepat and others
. . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA
PRESENT: Mr. Bhupinder Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner.
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.(ORAL)
The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent/University to extend the benefit of minimum of pay scale `57,700 per month with effect from 01.11.2017 in view of the instructions issued by respondent no.2 vide letter dated 26.09.2024, Annexure P-14, along with all consequential benefits.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance raised herein is pending for appropriate decision before the respondents. At this stage, the petitioner will be satisfied in case respondent no.1 is directed to decide her pending representation, dated 21.03.2025, Annexure P-20, in a specified period.
3.
Notice of motion.
MEHAK HURIA 2026.05.26 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment
CWP-16948-2026
-2-
4.
Mr. Aakash Singla, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/State. Mr. Anuj Dewan, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1/University and submits that the pending representation, dated 21.03.2025, will be decided by respondent no.1/Registrar of the University, by passing a speaking order in accordance with law within three months.
5.
In view of the statement made, learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection to the petition being disposed of in terms thereof with a direction if the due benefits are found admissible, the same shall be released to the petitioner within four weeks therefrom.
6.
Ordered accordingly.
7.
In case the order is not passed and the benefits found admissible are not released within the stipulated periods, the officer concerned shall pay costs of `50,000 to the petitioner.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) 26.05.2026
JUDGE Mehak
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
MEHAK HURIA 2026.05.26 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment