Allowed

Rajvati v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Jul 2010CWP/14807/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana set aside an order withdrawing a Junior Stenographer Grade allowance. The Court held that the petitioner was not granted the grade twice and directed the state to revise the pay scale without withdrawal, relying on Shakuntla Devi.

What did the court decide?

Set-aside of the order withdrawing JST Grade; direction to respondents to revise the petitioner's pay scale accordingly without withdrawal.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.14807 of 2009 Date of Decision: July 22, 2010

Smt.Rajvati

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana & others

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Present: Mr.R.N.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State.

¶10

¶11

RANJIT SINGH, J.

¶12

The petitioner claims that she is entitled to higher pay scale on the basis of law laid down in Civil Writ Petition No.6599 of 2007 (Shakuntla Devi & others Vs. State of Haryana & others),

¶13

which was allowed on 4.3.2008. The JST Grade was allowed to all those employees who had acquired higher qualification and the same had been allowed to them on the basis of approach made before this court. This position is not in any serious dispute. However, the stand in the reply is that the petitioner has been granted JST Grade twice and accordingly action is being taken to recover the benefit which has passed on to the petitioner twice. The counsel for the petitioner joins issues in this regard with the State counsel and refers to Annexures R-1 and R-2 to show that earlier the petitioner was granted JST Grade from the date of her regular appointment, whereas subsequently through Annexure R-2 the same benefit has been granted to her from the date she was appointed on adhoc basis. The counsel accordingly contends that this would not mean

¶14

Civil Writ Petition No.14807 of 2009 : 2 :

¶15

that the petitioner has been granted the JST Grade twice. This appears to be the position. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been granted the JST Grade twice, for which there would be justification to withdraw the same. The relief claimed by the petitioner, thus, is squarely covered by the ratio of law laid down in Shakuntla Devi's case (supra).

¶16

Accordingly, the impugned order, Annexure P-5, withdrawing the JST Grade granted to the petitioner cannot be sustained and the same is set-aside. Directions, therefore, are issued to the respondents to revise the pay scale of the petitioner accordingly and not to withdraw the JST Grade allowed to the petitioner in compliance with the order earlier passed by this court, copy of which has been annexure P-2.

¶17

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶18

July 22, 2010 ramesh

¶19

( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE

Rajvati v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajvati 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

Union of India and Anr. Vs Lakhwinder Singh and Ors.

Atam Parkash Khatter and Ors. Vs Commissioner & Secretary and Others

Naseeb Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Rubal Agnihotri Vs State of Punjab

Munish Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Partap Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.