SURAJ PARKASH vs UTTAR HARYANA BIJALI VITRAN NIGAM LTD AND OTHERS — CWP/11868/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 226/227. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 21st April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010644622026

e-Filing Number

16-04-2026

Filing Number

CWP/22924/2026

Filing Date

17-Apr-2026

Registration No

CWP/11868/2026

Registration Date

18-Apr-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar

Coram

Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

21-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 28-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 226/227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SURAJ PARKASH

    Adv. MOHNISH SHARMA

  2. 2.Suraj Parkash

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UTTAR HARYANA BIJALI VITRAN NIGAM LTD AND OTHERS

  2. 2.Suraj Parkash

  3. 3.Chief engineer Operation UHBVN

  4. 4.Under Secretary HR2 chief general manager administration uhbvnl

  5. 5.Chief account officer UHBVN

  6. 6.Virender Singh mor

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 21-Apr-2026

    Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh BrarView PDF

    The Punjab and Haryana High Court directed Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL) to treat the writ petition as a comprehensive representation and decide the petitioner's case within three months, considering Supreme Court precedent that employees working on higher posts cannot be denied corresponding salaries. The court found the respondents had no objection to this direction and ordered a reasoned decision with opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, with relief to be granted forthwith if found entitled. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/11868/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Punjab and Haryana High Court directed Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL) to treat the writ petition as a comprehensive representation and decide the petitioner's case within three months, considering Supreme Court precedent that employees working on higher posts cannot be denied corresponding salaries. The court found the respondents had no objection to this direction and ordered a reasoned decision with opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, with relief to be granted forthwith if found entitled. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case