IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

101 (05 cases) RA(cid:3)CW(cid:3)339(cid:3)2024 in CWP(cid:3)2936(cid:3)2017 Date of Decision :10.01.2025 O.P. Kathuria and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents RA(cid:3)CW(cid:3)464(cid:3)2024 in CWP(cid:3)19325(cid:3)2015 S.K. Mathur and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents RA(cid:3)CW(cid:3)463(cid:3)2024 in CWP(cid:3)23591(cid:3)2015 Rajan Guglani and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents RA(cid:3)CW(cid:3)427(cid:3)2024 in CWP(cid:3)10646(cid:3)2023 K.L. Bhayana and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents S.C. Sikka and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present: Mr. Karan Nehra, Advocate for the review(cid:24)applicant(s)

in RA(cid:24)CW(cid:24)339(cid:24)2014, RA(cid:24)CW(cid:24)464(cid:24)2024, RA(cid:24)CW(cid:24)463(cid:24)2024 &

RA(cid:24)CW(cid:24)427(cid:24)2024.

Mr. Kulbir Narwal, Advocate for the review(cid:24)applicant in RA(cid:24)CW(cid:24)339(cid:24)2024.

Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Addl. A.G. Haryana with Mr. Divyanshu Kaushik Advocate, Ms. Simran Sharma, Advocate & Ms. Manreet Kaur, Advocates for the respondents.

* * *

(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:8)(cid:15)(cid:16)

1. Present review petitions have been filed for the review of the judgment dated 19.07.2024 passed by the Full Bench of this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the review(cid:24)applicant submits that though, he has no grievance with regard to the judgment dated 19.07.2024 passed by the Full Bench of this Court, qua the setting aside Rule 8(3) of the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part(cid:24)II Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as Part(cid:24)II Rules, 2009) however, the only difficulty found is that no direction has been given to the respondents in the said judgment to consider the claim of the petitioners for grant the same, who have now become eligible for the grant of benefit after Rule 8(3) of the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part(cid:24)II Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as Part(cid:24)II Rules, 2009) has been set aside so as to cover the petitioners therein under Rule 8(1) of Part(cid:24)II Rules, 2009 for the grant of the benefit through application of judgment dated 19.07.2024.

3. It may be noticed that once, Rule 8(3) of Part(cid:24)II Rules, 2009 has been set aside and Rule 8(1) of Part(cid:24)II Rules, 2009 has been made applicable even qua the employees, who retired between the period 01.01.2006 and 17.04.2009, it is incumbent upon the respondent(cid:24)State to grant the relief admissible to such employees, in case any claim is raised before the State by filing appropriate representation by any such claimant including the petitioners. Rather than raising a claim before the State so as to be considered eligible to be granted the relief keeping in view the judgment dated 19.07.2024 passed by the Full Bench of this Court, the petitioners have chosen to file present review petition. The grant of relief is inherent keeping in view the fact that Rule 8(3) of Part(cid:24)II Rules, 2009 has been set aside. In case, any representation is filed by any employee, who retired between 01.01.2006 to 17.04.2009 to claim relief under 2009 Rules, the State is bound to consider the same in a time bound manner and pass appropriate order within a period of 08 weeks from the date of receipt of any such representation qua the relief claimed along with consequential benefits admissible.

4. Grievance raised by the applicants in the review petitions is that the judgment dated 19.07.2024 which is sought to be reviewed is incorrect and the view taken by the Full