High CourtsSingle Bench(2020) 10 P&H CK 0160

Gaurav Gupta And Others vs Punjabi University, Patiala And Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 27 October 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Harnaresh Singh Gill, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 17607 Of 2020

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 282 words

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J

Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing. Petitioners No.1 to 16 are serving on the post of Assistant Professors Stage-II, Computer Science and Engineering Department, petitioners No.17 and 18 are serving on the post of Assistant Professors Stage-II, Electronics & Communication Department, petitioner No.19 is serving on the post of Assistant Professor Stage-II, Computer Engineering Department, petitioner No.20 is serving on the post of Assistant Professor Stage-III, Electronics & Communication Department and petitioners No.21 and 22 are serving on the post of Assistant Professors Stage-IV, Computer Science and Engineering Department, Punjabi University, Patiala.

A writ of mandamus is sought to direct the respondent/University to grant them an additional increment on promotion/placement from Stage-I to Stage-II and then from Stage-II to Stage-III. The prayer is founded on the strength of UGC Guidelines, 2010 which counsel submits even binds the respondent/University.

Yet another submission raised is that similarly situated employees have been granted the benefit of UGC Circular, 2010 by the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, as also Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.

Without even ascertaining the correctness of the averments made in the petition, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition in terms of granting liberty to the petitioners to file the comprehensive representations as regards their claim.

In the eventuality of any such representation being preferred, respondent No.3 would be obligated to examine the claim and to thereafter take a final decision thereupon by passing a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of submission of such representation.

Writ petition is disposed of.

It is however made clear that this Court has not opined on the merits of the claim.