The High Court heard an appeal against a Single Judge's order granting service counting benefits to a lecturer. The court found no error in the lower court's finding that the petitioner's post was equivalent to a Lecturer and dismissed the appeal.
The appeal was dismissed with no interference in the judgment below.
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 AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
LPA No. 781 of 2010
Date of Decision: July 8, 2010
State of Haryana and another
…Appellants
Versus
Dr. V. Saraswati and others …Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present: Ms. Mamta Singhal Talwar, AAG, Haryana,
for the appellants.
M.M. KUMAR, J.
The instant appeal is directed against judgment dated 4.12.2009, rendered by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 6959 of 2009. It has granted the benefit of notification dated 8.12.2000 (P-4), to the petitioner-respondent No. 1 with regard to counting of her service rendered as Lecturer from 2.12.1985 to 30.9.1987. It is not disputed that the petitioner-respondent No. 1 without any break has joined as a Lecturer in Zoology in Gita Vidya Mandir Girls College, Sonepat on 5.10.1987. The reason for not joining on 1.10.1987 was that there were holidays from 1.10.1987 to 4.10.1987.
The only issue before the learned Single Judge was that she was not covered by the instructions dated 8.12.2000 because she was appointed on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1,600/- and not in the pay scale of Lecturer. However, the learned Single Judge referring to the order of her confirmation in service, has given a categorical finding that she was confirmed in the pay scale
LPA No. 781 of 2010
2
of Rs. 700-1,600. On that basis, learned Single Judge has found that the post and pay scale of the petitioner-respondent No. 1 were equivalent to that of a Lecturer.
Having heard learned State counsel we are of the considered view that no exception has been provided to interfere in the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. It does not call for any interference. The appeal does not warrant admission. Dismissed.
(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE
July 8, 2010
(A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE
Pkapoor
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the single judge's order allowing service counting for the petitioner-respondent warrants interference.
State of Haryana and another
Dr. V. Saraswati and others
M.m. Kumar
A.n. Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
