CWP no. 965 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP no. 965 of 2011(O&M) Decided on : 10-05-2011 Prem Pal ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr.Krishan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana MAHESH GROVER, J The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer that respondents be directed to release his salary with effect from 16.10.2001 to 14.9.2009 and to treat this as qualifying service with all consequential benefits with the following prayer:- “Civil writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with prayer to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the salary w.e.f 16.10.2001 to 14.9.2009 to the petitioner by considering the said period as qualifying service with all consequential benefits as vide order dated 14.9.2009 the petitioner was re-instated in service by Additional Transport Commissioner, Haryana.” In the reply submitted by the respondents, they have raised the preliminary objection that the writ petition is pre-mature on account of the fact that a statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner against an order on the CWP no. 965 of 2011(O&M) 2 basis of which all the benefits have been denied to him is still pending before the Financial Commissioner. The preliminary objection no.2 is extracted herebelow:- “2. That the present writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioner has suppressed the real and material facts from this Hon'ble Court that he has already filed an appeal on the same issue before the Financial Commissioner, Govt. to Haryana, Transport Department for release of salary w.e.f 16.10.2001 to 14.9.2009 which is still pending for decision.” Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to dispose of the said appeal. On due consideration of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the instant writ petition with a direction to the Financial Commissioner to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law by passing a speaking order preferably within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. May 10 , 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge