The Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent appeal filed by the State of Haryana. The Court held that the Single Judge correctly granted pay protection to respondents following the binding precedent in Darshan Lal, making the matter resistant to interference.
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. 786 of 2010
Date of Decision: July 12, 2010
State of Haryana and others
…Appellants
Versus
Mehar Chand and another
…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 under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 19.1.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 828 of 2010. The learned Single Judge has granted the relief of pay protection to the erstwhile employees of Octroi Branch of Municipal Committee, Ambala, because in the year 1999 the octroi was abolished by the appellant State and the surplus staff was ordered to be absorbed in the Industrial Training and Vocational Education Department on 29.12.1999. The petitioner-respondents after serving legal notice for the purposes of grant of benefit of pay protection with regard to service rendered to the Municipal
LPA No. 786 of 2010
2
Committee, had approached this Court. Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has followed the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Darshan Lal and others v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 11454 of 2004, decided on 8.5.2006, Annexure P-8) .
It was not disputed before us that the order passed by the Division Bench has attained finality once the benefit of pay protection has been given to the petitioners in CWP No. 11454 of 2004, which was decided on 8.5.2006. There is no reason to deny the same benefit to the petitioner-respondents. The matter is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment rendered in the case of Darshan Lal (supra) in favour of the petitioner-respondents and does not merit interference of this Court. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE
(A.N. JINDAL) July 12, 2010 JUDGE
Pkapoor
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal against the grant of pay protection to erstwhile octroi employees stands allowed or dismissed?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Darshan Lal and others v. State of Haryana and othersFollowed¶19
Darshan Lal and others v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 11454 of 2004, decided on 8.5.2006, Annexure P-8)
State of Haryana and others
Mehar Chand and another
M.M. KUMAR
A.N. JINDAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
