Remanded

Sushil Kumar v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Feb 2010CWP/15782/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this CWP, the petitioner, an orthopaedically challenged person, sought appointment as Taxation Inspector against a reserved post. Having already been promoted in 2009, he claimed retrospective promotion. The court directed the respondents to consider his claim and grant consequential benefits within four months.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider claim for retrospective promotion and grant consequential benefits within four months.

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

¶1

1 –

¶2

CWP No.15782 of 1993.doc

¶3

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CM No.1449 of 2010 and CWP No.15782 of 1993 Date of Decision: 05.02.2010

¶6

¶7

Sushil Kumar . . . . Petitioner

¶8

VS.

¶9

State of Punjab and another . . . . . Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶12

¶13

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner

¶18

Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab

¶19

¶20

SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)

¶21

CM No.1449 of 2010

¶22

Allowed as prayed for.

¶23

The additional Affidavit of Sushil Kumar s/o Bishan Dass, Inspector, O/o Assistant Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Gurdaspur along with Annexures P8 and P9, is taken on record.

¶24

CM stands disposed of.

¶25

CWP No.15782 of 1993

¶26

(1). The petitioner, who, at the relevant time was working as a Clerk, seeks a mandamus to

¶27

2 –

¶28

CWP No.15782 of 1993.doc

¶29

consider and appoint him as Taxation Inspector against the post reserved for the orthopaedicallychallenged persons.

¶30

(2). The petitioner has placed on record an additional affidavit along with documents, Annexure P8 and P9 and avers that though he has already been promoted as Excise and Taxation Inspector vide order dated 14.10.2009, nevertheless he is entitled for retrospective promotion on the said post.

¶31

(3). In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for retrospective promotion/ appointment and if found due for such retrospective promotion as per rules, the necessary relief/consequential benefits shall be granted to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶32

(4). Ordered accordingly.

¶33

(5). Dasti .

¶34

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

¶35

05.02.2010

¶36

vishal shonkar

¶37

CWP No.15782 of 1993.doc - 3 –

Sushil Kumar v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karnail Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Surinder Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Balwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Charanjit Kaur and Others Vs State of Pb.and Others

Ajaib Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gursharan Singh Gill Vs State of Punjab & Ors.