IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

AT CHANDIGARH

C.M. No. 2507 of 2013 in/ and

CWP No. 14103 of 2007 (O&M)

Date of Decision:03.05.2013

Dr. Harjinder Singh

………Petitioner

Versus

The Principal, Sahid Bhagat Singh Govt. College Kotkapura (Faridkot),

Distt. Faridkot and another

………… Respondents

*****

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

Present:-

Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with

Ms. Renu, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Ms. Monica Chibber Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

*****

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

, J.(ORAL)

Prayer in this application is for disposal of the writ petition in

the light of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 19214 of 2009

titled Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 23.8.2011

(Annexure P-9), against which Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the State

of Punjab i.e. LPA No. 637 of 2012 titled State of Punjab and others vs.

Darshan Singh and another, stands dismissed on 6.11.2012 ( Annexure

P-10).

It has been stated by the counsel for the petitioner that the said

judgment in the case of Darshan Singh's case (supra) has been

implemented.

Notice of the application was issued to the State of Punjab.

CWP No. 14103 of 2007

2

Counsel for the State contends that the petitioner is not entitled

to the grant of the benefit as has been claimed by him in the light of the

judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and

others vs. Dev Dutt Kaushal and others, AIR 1996 SC 85.

On considering the submissions made by the counsel for the

parties, I am of the considered view that the claim made in the present writ

petition deserves to be allowed as the same is covered in favour of the

petitioner by the judgment passed by this Court in Darshan Singh's case

(supra). Perusal of the said judgment would show that Dev Dutt Kaushal's

case (supra) has been duly considered by this Court. Further a Division

Bench of this Court in CWP No. 11010 of 2005 titled Harnandan Singh vs.

State of Punjab and others, decided on 3.8.2006 (Annexure P-7) has also

considered the said judgment and granted the relief as has been claimed in

the present writ petition.

The matter with regard to the claim of a employee, who was of

the same College and was similarly placed as the petitioner, having attained

finality and the judgment having been implemented qua him, there is no

scope as to why the present writ petition should not be allowed. The writ

petition is allowed in the same terms as in Darshan Singh's case (supra).

03.05.2013

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)

'sp'

JUDGE