Disposed

Satish Nandal v. Haryana State Electronics Dev. Corp. Ltd.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Aug 2009CWP/11735/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking parity in pay scales with Haryana Government employees. The court allowed the petitioner liberty to file a representation before the Board of Directors within two weeks for a mandatory expeditious decision.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file representation within two weeks; authority directed to decide within three months.

Satish Nandal Vs Haryana 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. 11735 of 2009

¶3

DATE OF DECISION : 06.08.2009

¶4

Satish Nandal

¶5

.... PETITIONER

¶6

Versus

¶7

Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Limited

¶8

..... RESPONDENT

¶9

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

¶10

Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ashish Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral )

¶13

The petitioner, who is working as Assistant Engineer with the respondent Corporation and is now posted at Electronics Research Development and Facilities Center, Gurgaon, has filed the instant petition for issuing direction to the respondent Corporation to grant him the same pay scale, which is admissible to the Assistant Engineers of the Haryana Government, from the date it was granted to them.

¶14

It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the earlier decision of the Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure P-1, the employees of the respondent Corporation are to be given the same pay scales, as given to the State

¶15

CWP No. 11735 of 2009

¶16

-2-

¶17

Government employees. Counsel submits that in view of the said decision, the petitioner is entitled for the revised pay scales, which have not been given to him.

¶18

The petitioner has filed the instant petition without first making representation to the Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation, which had earlier taken the decision. In view of this, counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will make representation in this regard to the Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation and the same may be directed to be considered and decided expeditiously.

¶19

In view of the above, without issuing notice of motion as it will un-necessary delay the matter, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make representation to the Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation, within two weeks from today, for the grant of relief claimed in this petition. If any such representation is made by the petitioner within the said period, the Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within three months.

¶20

August 06, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE

Satish Nandal v. Haryana State Electronics Dev. Corp. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Nandal v. Haryana State Electronics Dev. Corp. Ltd.

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

Manish Aggarwal Vs Hry. Power Generation Corp. Ltd.

Krishan Kumar Verma and Ors. Vs H.S.A.M.B.

Satish Kumar and Ors. Vs Hvpnl and Ors.

Pavitra Devi Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mahesh Chand Vs Dhbvn

Bimla Devi Vs State of Haryana & Ors.