Allowed

Himmat Singh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Feb 2010CWP/2036/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants the petitioner benefication of appointment relating back to the date when other selected candidates in the same batch were appointed. The court held that while seniority and salary shall be fixed with notional benefits, the petitioner is not entitled to any monetary benefits during the interim period.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner entitled to benefit of appointment with effect from date respondents no.4 to 19 were appointed; no monetary benefits for interregnum, but seniority and salary fixed with notional benefits.

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

¶1

CM No.1598 of 2010 1 CWP No.2036 of 2001

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

DATE OF DECISION: 18.2.2010

¶4

Himmat Singh ...Petitioner

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

State of Haryana & Others …Respondents

¶7

CORAM

¶8

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI

¶9

PRESENT: Mr.RK Malik, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Surya Partap Singh, Advocate for petitioner

¶10

Mr.RS Kundu, Addl.A.G., Haryana

¶11

Permod Kohli, J. (Oral)

¶12

CM No.2036 of 2001

¶13

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the main case is taken on the Board. CM disposed of.

¶14

CWP No.2036 of 2001

¶15

Respondent-State issued advertisement no.1/99 which was published in Dainik Tribune dated 15.11.99 inviting applications for the posts of JBT teachers in various districts for various categories, including the Exserviceman. The petitioner being the dependent of Ex-servicemen applied

¶16

for the post in question claiming to be eligible and qualified. The petitioner

¶17

CM No.1598 of 2010 2 CWP No.2036 of 2001

¶18

was allotted roll no.54041 and called for interview. It is alleged that no select list was issued, though the appointment letter was issued individually. Subsequently, under the order of this court, the select list was published. The petitioner was not shown as one of the selected candidates. The petitioner, however, secured the copy of the select list and found that he secured 51.03 marks and his merit is above respondents no.4 to 19. The petitioner accordingly filed a representation for his selection/appointment on the basis of the merit achieved in the process of selection. Having failed to persuade the respondents-State to make appointment, the present petition has been filed.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶20

The petitioner has filed CM No.1598 of 2010 wherein it is stated that the petitioner was later on appointed in the next batch and joined as such on 12.7.2004. The petitioner is claiming benefit of appointment on the basis of selection pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 1999. The issued involved in this petition is squarely covered by a judgment this Court in CWP No.15415 of 2009 (Mohd.Rafeeq vs. State of Haryana and others) decided on 30.11.2009 wherein following observations have been made:-

¶21

“...During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner stands appointed. The only grievance of the petitioner now is that he has to be granted the benefit of appointment from the date, the other selected candidates were appointed. Similar directions were issued in the earlier judgment of this Court dated April 11, 2005 passed in CWP No.15043 of 2004. Since the petitioner was

¶22

CM No.1598 of 2010 3 CWP No.2036 of 2001

¶23

wrongly denied appointment and now he has been selected recognizing his eligibility, it is directed that the petitioner's appointment shall relate back from the date when other selected candidates were appointed. The petitioner shall be granted the benefit of length of service, seniority etc. on the basis of his merit position. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefit during the interregnum.”

¶24

In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be entitled to benefit of appointment with effect from the date respondents no.4 to 19 were appointed. However, he will not be entitled to any monetary benefits, though his seniority and salary shall be fixed by giving him the notional benefits of the appointment.

¶25

(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE

¶26

18.2.2010 MFK

Himmat Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himmat Singh v. State of Haryana

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

Association of Educational Colleges of Hry. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Om Parbha Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Deepak Jain S/Osh. Kalash Chand Jain and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Santi Saroop & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Randhir Singh Vs Deputy Registrar, Coop. Societies Rupnagar & Ors.

Shri Niwas Sharma Vs State of Haryana and Ors.