Disposed

Keshwa Nand and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Apr 2010CWP/12209/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An oxidation-writing petition filed by retired teachers seeking mandamus for 2nd increment due to higher responsibility and pay refixation. The Court referred the matter to an Officers' Committee constituted in a related case, directing it to dispose of the claim within four months with a speaking order.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Officers' Committee constituted vide order dated 02.03.2010 in CWP No. 16323 of 2008 to consider the petitioners' claim for 2nd increment and promotion benefits within four months and pas

Keshwa Nand and Ors. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

1 –

¶2

CWP No.12209 of 2009.doc

¶3

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CWP No.12209 of 2009

¶6

Date of Decision: 01.04.2010

¶7

¶8

Keshwa Nand and others

¶9

VS.

¶10

State of Punjab and others

¶11

. . . . . Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶14

****

¶15

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶16

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶17

¶18

Present: Mr. Yogesh Aneja, Advocate for the petitioners

¶19

Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab

¶20

¶21

SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)

¶22

(1). The petitioners are retired Head Teachers and Block Primary Education Officers from the Education Department, Government of Punjab. They seek a mandamus to direct the respondents to grant 2^nd increment on account of higher responsibility/on their promotion to the afore-mentioned post(s). They

¶23

also seek a direction for refixation of pay, retrospectively and accordingly revise their retiral benefits etc. Reliance is also placed upon an order dated 30.04.2003 passed by this Court in CWP 2840 of 1997 (Om Parkash Centre Head

¶24

2 –

¶25

CWP No.12209 of 2009.doc

¶26

Teacher and others versus State of Punjab and

¶27

others .

¶28

(2). Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their counteraffidavit/reply.

¶29

(3). During the course of the hearing learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the petitioners’ claim, as noticed above, can be effectively gone into by the Officers’ Committee constituted by this vide order dated 02.03.2010 passed in CWP No. 16323 of 2008 ( Smt. Sudarshana Devi and another vs. the State of Punjab and others). The said Committee has been duly notified vide order date 29.03.2010.

¶30

(4).

¶31

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction that let the claim of the petitioners for the grant of 2^nd increment on account of higher responsibility/promotion, be considered by the above-mentioned Officers’ Committee as early as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with Rules/Government policies and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order. Needless to say that in case the petitioners are held entitled to the claimed benefit,

¶32

3 –

¶33

CWP No.12209 of 2009.doc

¶34

the same shall also flow in their favour within the above-stated period.

¶35

(5). Ordered accordingly.

¶36

(6). Dasti

¶37

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

¶38

01.04.2010

¶39

vishal shonkar

Keshwa Nand and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keshwa Nand and Ors. v. State of Punjab and 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

Jasmer Singh Vs State of Pb.

Amarjit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Amarjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jai Pal Vs State of Pb.

Karamjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Narinder Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.