Disposed

Nikku Ram v. Managing Director,Hrtc

Himachal Pradesh HC9 Nov 2010CWP/4959/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a direction to re-fix the petitioner's pay in a revised scale. The Court directed the respondent to take appropriate action within two months based on the stand taken regarding pay scales for other staff.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent to take appropriate action to re-fix the petitioner's pay within two months of the date of production of the judgment.

Nikku Ram Vs Managing Director,Hrtc — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 4959 of 2010. Decided on 9.11.2010.

¶4

Nikku Ram ….Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Managing Director, HRTC. …Respondents

¶7

Coram

¶8

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge.

¶9

For the petitioner : Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate.

¶10

For the respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate.

¶11

Justice Kurian Joseph, C. J. (Oral):

¶12

The writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:

¶13

“(I) That the respondents may be directed to re-fix the pay of the petitioner in the revised pay scale of Rs. 1200-2100 with effect from 1.1.1986 or in the alternative at least with effect from 4.5.1986 by stepping up of the pay of the petitioner equal to the pay as fixed for the junior driver Shri Nanak Ram.”

¶14

In Annexure P-1, it is stated as follows:

¶15

“In this connection, it

¶16

is informed that the case of Shri Nikku Ram, driver of your Unit has been examined and found that the said driver has exercised his option w.e.f. 01/10/86 for the pre revised pay scale of Rs. 1025-2100 and later on the pay scale of Rs. 1025-2100 has been revised to Rs. 1200-2100 for which no option has been obtained and his pay has been fixed at Rs. 1200/- i.e. minimum of the revised pay scale by the R.M.

¶17

¶18

Sarkaghat w.e.f. 01.01.1986 in view of FR-23-6(2) which is self explanatory.”

¶19

The petitioner has served Annexure P-2, notice. There will be a direction to the 2nd/3^rd respondent to take appropriate action in the matter, in the light of the stand taken in Annexure P-1, within a period of two months from the date of production of copy of this judgment alongwith the copy of the writ petition by the petitioner before the 2^nd /3^rd respondent.

¶20

The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.

¶21

Copy dasti.

¶22

(Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice.

¶23

October 9, 2010. (Justice V.K. Ahuja) (HL) Judge.

Nikku Ram v. Managing Director,Hrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikku Ram v. Managing Director,Hrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Lal Vs State

Shiv Kumar Vs State

Dal Bahadur Vs State

Kamal Singh Vs State

Samaj Uthan Committee Vs State

Tara Devi Vs Rajeev Sharma