The petitioner challenged Tribunal orders quashing a delayed show cause notice regarding pay re-fixation for an illiterate respondent employed 14 years prior. The bench dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal's decision due to the excessive lapse and casual approach.
Writ petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
C.W.P.No. 2792 of 2000.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P.No. 2792 of 2000. Date of Decision:-
Union of India
Petitioner.
VERSUS
Jagraj Singh and another
Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR. HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI.
Present: None.
RITU BAHRI,J.
The petitioner issued a show cause notice after a lapse of 14 years for re-fixation of the pay of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 filed OA No. 415/PB/97 against the said show cause notice. The Tribunal allowed OA vide judgment dated 11.11.1997 by imposing a cost of Rs.1000/on the Officer In-charge of the records. Thereafter, the review application was filed which was dismissed vide judgment dated 8.10.1999 (Annexure P-5). The Union of India has challenged the orders dated 11.11.1997 and 8.10.1999 (Anneuxres P-3 and P-5 respectively) by filing the
C.W.P.No. 2792 of 2000.
2
present writ petition.
The respondent who was re-employed was appointed as Chowkidar. He is illiterate and cannot be presumed to be conversant with the rules and regulations pertaining to the pensionary benefits. In the order dated 11.11.1997 (Annexure P-3), the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench has observed that the Officer-inCharge should have obtained the option immediately when order dated 8.2.1983 came into existence. Suffice it to say after a gap of 14 years, a show cause notice has been issued. The Tribunal has quashed the show cause notice (Annexure P-1) and has restored pay fixation at Rs. 196/- as on 4.6.1982.
The above facts bring out casual approach of the petitioner-Union of India in treating the employee who is an illiterate and was unaware of the instructions issued by Government of India. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be upheld and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground that show cause notice was issued after a gap of 14 years.
The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-.
(M.M.KUMAR) (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE JUDGE
Anoop
C.W.P.No. 2792 of 2000. 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order dismissing the show cause notice over a 14-year lapse should be allowed.
Whether the delayed issuance of the show cause notice by the petitioner constituted a casual approach that warrants the writ petition's dismissal.
Whether the Tribunal's decision to restore pay fixation and quash the notice should be upheld.
Union of India
Jagraj Singh
M.M. Kumar
Ritu Bahri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
