RAVINDER MITTAL vs STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER COOPERATION — CWP/15085/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 14th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 14-May-2026

CNR: PHHC010821662026

e-Filing Number

11-05-2026

Filing Number

CWP/29833/2026

Filing Date

12-May-2026

Registration No

CWP/15085/2026

Registration Date

12-May-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar

Coram

Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar

Category

20.4 - SC OSB (PUNJAB) ( 466 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

14-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAVINDER MITTAL

    Adv. ABHISHEK SINGLA

  2. 2.Ravinder Mittal

  3. 3.Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER COOPERATION

  2. 2.Ravinder Mittal

  3. 3.Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab

  4. 4.The Punjab State Cooperative Bank Limited through its Managing Director

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh BrarView PDF

    Case Summary: CWP/15085/2026 Court Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of the petition by directing the competent authority to reconsider the petitioners' claim for two qualifying increments within three months, treating the petition as a comprehensive representation and applying the principles established in *Bhupinder Singh* case and a similar order granted to another employee on 03.04.2026. Key Facts: Two Senior Managers (Ravinder Mittal and another) passed the CAIIB examination on 03.01.2023 and claimed entitlement to two qualifying increments from that date under Rule 2.2(g) of the Punjab State Cooperative Financing Institutions Service Rules. However, the bank granted increments only from later dates (probation completion dates), which the petitioners contended violated statutory rules and constituted discriminatory treatment. Reasoning: The court did not adjudicate merits but noted the respondents' consent to reconsider the claim in light of precedent, directing a reasoned decision with consequential benefits including pay refixation and arrears if relief is warranted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/15085/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CWP/15085/2026 Court Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of the petition by directing the competent authority to reconsider the petitioners' claim for two qualifying increments within three months, treating the petition as a comprehensive representation and applying the principles established in *Bhupinder Singh* case and a similar order granted to another employee on 03.04.2026. Key Facts: Two Senior Managers (Ravinder Mittal and another) passed the CAIIB examination on 03.01.2023 and claimed entitlement to two qualifying increments from that date under Rule 2.2(g) of the Punjab State Cooperative Financing Institutions Service Rules. However, the bank granted increments only from later dates (probation completion dates), which the petitioners contended violated statutory rules and constituted discriminatory treatment. Reasoning: The court did not adjudicate merits but noted the respondents' consent to reconsider the claim in light of precedent, directing a reasoned decision with consequential benefits including pay refixation and arrears if relief is warranted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case