Disposed

Anoop Singh v. Punjab State Electricity Board and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Jul 2009CWP/10757/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil writ petition, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of a matter by directing the respondent board to expeditiously consider the petitioner's representation regarding annual increments during suspension, to be decided within three months via a speaking order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the representation in accordance by a speaking order expeditiously within three months.

Anoop Singh Vs Punjab State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

C.W.P. No. 10757 of 2009

¶3

DATE OF DECISION : 22.07.2009

¶4

Anoop Singh

¶5

.... PETITIONER

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and another

¶8

..... RESPONDENTS

¶9

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

¶10

Present: Mr. J.S. Jaikdka, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral )

¶13

The petitioner is working as Revenue Accountant at Sub Division, Bassian, Punjab State Electricity Board. In the year 2004, he was placed under suspension on initiation of a departmental enquiry. Subsequently, one month thereafter, he was re-instated. Concededly, the departmental proceedings have not been finalised till date. It is the case of the petitioner that after the year 2004, he has not been granted any increment and he is getting less salary every month.

¶14

The petitioner has filed the instant petition for issuing directions to the respondents to grant him the annual increments treating the period of suspension as non-duty period, in view of the Board Circular dated 2.6.1977. It is the case of the petitioner that according to this Circular,

¶15

CWP No. 10757 of 2009

¶16

-2-

¶17

if the disciplinary proceedings are not finalised within two years, then the official can be granted the annual increments by treating his suspension period as non-duty period, subject to the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. It is further the case of the petitioner that for this relief, he made a detailed representation, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure P-2. Neither the said representation has been considered and decided nor the annual increment has been released so far. Counsel for the petitioner submits that at this stage, the petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is issued to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the said representation in accordance with law by passing a speaking order.

¶18

In view of the above, without issuing notice of motion as it will un-necessary delay the matter, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-2) in accordance with law by passing a speaking order, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months.

¶19

July 22, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE

Anoop Singh v. Punjab State Electricity Board and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop Singh v. Punjab State Electricity Board and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harbans Lal Raheja Vs U.C.O. Bank and Ors.

Geeta Rani Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sukhvir Singh Vs S.G.P.C.

Pushpa Devi Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Neelam Kumari and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Davinder Kumar Nanda Vs State of Haryana and Ors.