TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (1) TMI 940
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed therein before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. 3. The appellants herein filed the aforesaid writ petition, inter alia, for the following relief: (iv) Quashing the order No. 202 dated 9.7.2002 (Annexure Indian Penal Code-3) passed by the respondent No. 3 withdrawing the benefits of pay fixation already granted to petitioners Satinder Singh and directing the respondent to step-up the pay of the petitioners to that of their junior Sh. Ram Prakash Shori and the petitioners may be granted all arrears of Pay, retiral benefits and other consequential benefits with interest @ 18% per annum. 4. In the written statement/counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, Punjab State Electricity Board, and its officers, it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also dismissed by the High Court on 23rd February, 2007. 7. It is against the said three orders of the High Court that these appeals have been filed. 8. Appearing for the appellants, Mr. Nidesh Gupta, learned senior advocate, submitted that when the writ petition was filed on behalf of both the appellants, it was only natural that the reliefs therein had been claimed in respect of both and it could not be confined to the appellant No. 2 alone, as was done in the instant case, merely on account of the statement made in the written statement of the respondents that the grievance of the appellant No. 2 had already been addressed. Mr. Gupta submitted that the appellants were similarly situated and it was their common ground that they were re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eview petition, in the absence of learned Counsel for the appellants, the Court was persuaded to accept the statement made on behalf of the respondent that relief claimed in the review petition had not been claimed in the writ petition itself as far as the appellant No. 1 is concerned and the review petition was not, therefore, maintainable. Mr. Gupta submitted that the orders passed on the writ petition and review petitions were passed on an erroneous understanding that the appellant No. 1 had not prayed for any relief in the writ petition and he was not therefore entitled to the reliefs prayed for by the appellants. 10. Mr. Jagdish Singh Chhabra, who appeared for the Punjab State Electricity Board and its authorities, reiterated the subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of his junior, Shri R.P. Shori. Although, this question does not appear to have been gone into by the High Court for the simple reason that the writ petition was disposed of only on the averments contained in paragraph 7 of the written statement filed on behalf of respondents that the grievance of the appellant No. 2 duly addressed, there ought to have been at least some discussion in the judgment of the High Court regarding the claim of the appellant No. 1. Unfortunately, the case of the appellant No. 1 was not considered at all by the High Court. 13. Something may be said with regard to Mr. Chhabra's submissions about the difference in increment in the scales which the appellant No. 1 and Shri Shori are placed, but the same is stil....