The court allowed the civil writ petition seeking re-fixation of the petitioner's pay to match his junior, disposing of the matter in accordance with a previous Division Bench judgment allowing similar claims for Punjabi Stenography Instructors.
The Petition was disposed of in terms of the decision dated 3.12.2001 in L.P.A. No.848 of 1992.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.8638 of 1993 Date of Decision : February 18, 2010.
Sudesh Kumar Gupta versus State of Punjab and another
..... Petitioner
..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
Present : Ms.Maninder, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
ORDER
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
In this civil writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction for re-fixation of his pay at a higher stage so as to bring him at par with his immediate junior.
The respondents have filed their counter-affidavits. The matter was thereafter adjourned to await the decision in LPA No.848 of 1992. The said appeal was preferred by the persons who, like the petitioner, were working as Punjabi Stenography Instructors. The said appeal has been allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 3.12.2001 in the following terms:-
“In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is modified and the respondents are directed to fix the pay of the appellants
C.W.P.No .8638 of 1993 2
in the pay scales of Rs.200-450 with effect from 1.2.1968 and Rs.225-500 with effect from 1.2.1971. However, the appellants shall not be entitled to arrears beyond a period of 38 months preceding the date of filing of the writ petition. The respondents are directed to notionally fix their pay in the pay scales mentioned above and give them monetary benefit in terms of this order within a period of 6 months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.”
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the decision dated 3.12.2001 passed in L.P.A. No.848 of 1992 (Sawinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another.
Dasti.
18-02-2010 Mohinder
(SURYA KANT) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to re-fixation of pay at a higher stage to be brought at par with his immediate junior.
Whether the present writ petition should be disposed of in terms of the earlier decision in L.P.A. No.848 of 1992.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sawinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and anotherFollowed¶20
LPA No.848 of 1992 (Sawinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another)
Sawinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and anotherFollowed¶20
(Sawinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another)
Sudesh Kumar Gupta
State of Punjab
Surya Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
