Allowed

Vijay Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Feb 2010CWP/10440/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's past service in his parent department for pay fixation and pensionary benefits, excluding seniority, in accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling in the Deepak Sood case.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioner's past service for pay fixation and pensionary benefits excluding seniority; claim to be determined within four months.

Vijay Singh Vs State of Haryana… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

CM No.19272 of 2009 and : 1 : CWP No.10440 of 2003

¶2

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

¶3

Date of decision: 05.02.2010

¶4

CM No.19272 of 2009 and CWP No.10440 of 2003

¶5

Vijay Singh .. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .. Respondents

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI

¶7

Present: Mr.Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate,for the petitioner.

¶8

Mr.RS Kundu, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents.

¶9

PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral):

¶10

Civil Misc. Application is allowed. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken today itself for final hearing.

¶11

The petitioner was appointed as Peon in the pay scale of Rs.70-95 in the Municipal Committee, Hisar, on 6.9.1978. On acquiring higher qualification of Matric, he was promoted to the post of Octroi Clerk in the same office on 8.3.1990. In the year 2000, the Octroi department was abolished and the petitioner was adjusted in the Public Health Department, B&R and was posted in the Public Health Division No.1, Model Town, Hisar, on 19.1.2000. The petitioner

¶12

CM No.19272 of 2009 and : 2 : CWP No.10440 of 2003

¶13

represented for grant of higher standard scale after completion of 10 years of service as Clerk. The same has been rejected. The petitioner also served a legal notice on 10.03.2003, but to no avail. Hence, this petition.

¶14

The respondents in their reply, have disputed the claim of the petitioner.

¶15

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

¶16

The issue raised in the writ petitions is no more res integra. A similar issue came up for consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Employees of the Octroi Branch of the Municipal committee. On consideration of the issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and another Vs. Deepak Sood and others, (Civil Appeal No.4446 of 2008) decided on 15.07.2008, made the following observations:-

¶17

“Therefore, in the series of judgments given by this Court the view has been taken that in case of a transfer/absorption from one department to another or from public sector to State though the benefit of the seniority may be denied to the incumbent but not for any other benefits like pay fixation and for the pensionary benefits. Therefore, when the benefit of past service rendered in the parent

¶18

CM No.19272 of 2009 and : 3 : CWP No.10440 of 2003

¶19

department was given for fixation of pay and pensionary benefits, there is no reason why the past service should not be counted for grant of ACP Grade. Consequently, we are of the view that the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment and order is correct and there is no ground to interfere in this appeal. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed but with no order as to costs.”

¶20

The aforesaid observations are squarely applicable to the facts of the present writ petitions.

¶21

In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the period of service rendered by the petitioner in the Municipal Committee for all intents and purposes except the seniority. The claim of the petitioner be determined and paid within a period of four months in accordance with law from the date a copy of this order is made available to the competent authority. No costs.

¶22

05.02.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE

Vijay Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sham Lal Tanwar Vs the Haryana Public Service Commission Et

Jaswant Rai and Others Vs the Secretary to Govt. Punjab

Gopal Rana Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Dalbir Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Pale Ram and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.