SHAKTI SINGH vs UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. AND OTHERS — LPA/3254/2025

Disposed: --DISMISSED on 14th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 22-Jan-2026

CNR: PHHC011707282025

Filing Number

LPA/66536/2025

Filing Date

17-Oct-2025

Registration No

LPA/3254/2025

Registration Date

07-Nov-2025

Judge

Justice (To Be Nominated) , Mr. Justice Rohit Kapoor

Coram

Justice (To Be Nominated) , Mr. Justice Rohit Kapoor

Bench Type

Double

Category

1.44 - LPA-SERVICE CORPO. & OTH STATUTORY BODIES(HY.) ( 349 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

LPA SECTION

Decision Date

14-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISMISSED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHAKTI SINGH

    Adv. BALRAJ SINGH RATHEE

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-May-2026

    Justice (To Be Nominated),mr. Justice Rohit KapoorView PDF

    Case Summary: LPA/3254/2025 - Shakti Singh v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Shakti Singh's appeal challenging the Single Judge's rejection of his writ petition. Singh, who retired as JE-II in 2011, sought salary parity with his junior Om Parkash, claiming discriminatory treatment. The court upheld the dismissal on grounds of delay and lack of merit, finding that Om Parkash had been promoted to a higher post (JE-I) and received service benefits justifying his higher salary. The court declined to conduct a factual review 45 years after the events and rejected Singh's unsubstantiated claim of an unapplied salary up-gradation policy. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Oct-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. LPA/3254/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: LPA/3254/2025 - Shakti Singh v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Shakti Singh's appeal challenging the Single Judge's rejection of his writ petition. Singh, who retired as JE-II in 2011, sought salary parity with his junior Om Parkash, claiming discriminatory treatment. The court upheld the dismissal on grounds of delay and lack of merit, finding that Om Parkash had been promoted to a higher post (JE-I) and received service benefits justifying his higher salary. The court declined to conduct a factual review 45 years after the events and rejected Singh's unsubstantiated claim of an unapplied salary up-gradation policy. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case