Disposed

Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Feb 2010CWP/8637/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition by directing the respondent to verify the petitioner's claim of seniority over promoted juniors. The court ordered immediate consideration of the plea for promotion to the post of Master with retrospective benefits and mandated completion within four months.

What did the court decide?

Direct response to call for records, verify plea, and promote petitioner from due date with benefits; record exercise to complete within four months.

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

¶1

1 –

¶2

CWP No.8637 of 1992.doc

¶3

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CWP No.8637 of 1992 Date of Decision: 08.02.2010

¶6

¶7

Baldev Singh . . . . Petitioner

¶8

VS.

¶9

State of Punjab and others . . . . . 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: Ms. Maninder, Advocate for the petitioner

¶18

Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab

¶19

¶20

SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)

¶21

(1). The petitioner is working as a Punjabi Teacher and at the relevant time, she was posted at Government High School, Adarman, District Jalandhar. He seeks a direction for his promotion as Master with effect from the date when his juniors were allegedly promoted.

¶22

(2). The petitioner’s case is that in the seniority list of Classical and Vernacular Teachers issued on 11.08.1981, he was placed at Serial No.317 and Harmesh Lal, Harkishan Singh and Satya Pal were

¶23

2 –

¶24

CWP No.8637 of 1992.doc

¶25

placed at Sr.Nos.380, 403 and 454, respectively. The petitioner has further averred that the abovementioned persons who are said to be juniors to the petitioner, have been promoted as Masters but his claim has not been considered for no valid reason.

¶26

(3). The writ petition was admitted way back on July 7, 1992. No counter-reply has been filed by the respondents. Any further delay in the disposal of the writ petition would be to the disadvantage of the petitioner as he is claiming promotion to the post of Master retrospectively.

¶27

(4).

¶28

This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2 to immediately call for the records and verify the plea taken by the petitioner and if it is found that the persons junior to the petitioner were actually promoted without considering the petitioner’s claim, the respondent No.2 shall consider the same and if found entitled, the petitioner shall be promoted from the due date with all consequential benefits. The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶29

3 –

¶30

CWP No.8637 of 1992.doc

¶31

(5). Ordered accordingly.

¶32

(6). Dasti

¶33

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

¶34

08.02.2010

¶35

vishal shonkar

Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baldev Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushil Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Charanjit Kaur and Others Vs State of Pb.and Others

Ajaib Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Darshan Singh Sidhu Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Sunita Devi Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sukhvinder Singh Kalsi Vs State of Punjab and Ors.