IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1554 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.11.2011 Capt. Joginder Singh and others ...Petitioners versus The Panjab University, Chandigarh, through its Registrar, and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. G.S.Bal, Advocate, for the petitioners. None for respondent No.1. Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.2. ----- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioners seek for quashing of the order passed by the Panjab University denying the request of the petitioners for extending the benefit of emergency service for fixation of their pay scales. The petitioners would refer to an instance of a similar benefit granted to one S.K.Prashar, Clerk, in the Youth Welfare Department of the respondent-University. The defence by the University is that the Panjab University notifications extending the emergency services for civil posts were not extended to the posts in Civil Writ Petition No.1554 of 1988 (O&M) - 2 - the University. The respondent concedes that the extension of increments granted to S.K.Prashar for the emergency service was wrong and it could not be cited as precedent. Prashar himself is not a party to the proceedings and any directions against the University for withdrawal of such benefits extended to yet another person which is admitted by the University as wrongly done, cannot be made. If the petitioners could prove their entitlements independently, without reference to the issue of benefit, admittedly wrongly extended to another person, then it would have been possible for me to examine the petitioners' request. It is settled law that there can be no application of Article 14 on anything which is wrongly done by a public authority. In this case, if the wrong is even admitted by the University, there can be no more direction than stating that the University shall not extend any such benefits if the Rules did not permit. As far as the petitioners are concerned of course it cannot be any consolation that some other person had been favoured wrongly but I am afraid I cannot make the situation different for the petitioners that would breach the applicable rules. The denial of the benefit was under the circumstances justified and there is no scope for interference. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 23.11.2011 sanjeev