The Letters Patent Appeal arising from a judgment granting annual increments for ad hoc service was dismissed as it was fully covered by a prior Division Bench judgment. The court held the appeal was without merit.
The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed as without merit and was not allowed to proceed further.
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.
LPA No. 839 of 2010 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 839 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision 17.08.2010
State of Haryana and others
-----Appellants
Versus
Dr. Muni Lal ---Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Ms. Mamta Singhal Talwar, AAG Haryana for the appellants.
M.M. Kumar, J.
The State of Haryana is in appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent against judgment dated 16.12.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge dated 16.12.2009 in C.W.P. No. 13133 of 1989. The learned Single Judge has allowed the claim of the employeerespondent for grant of annual increments in respect of ad hoc service, which has been refused vide order dated 20.09.1989. In support of the view, the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Jai Pal Singh v. State of Haryana 1994 (2) S.C.T. 527 and another Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Hanumant Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others (C.W.P. No. 7862 of
LPA No. 839 of 2010 (O&M)
-2-
of their grievance before a co-equal Bench.
The appeal is wholly without merit and the same is
dismissed.
(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE
August 17, 2010 Atul
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Single Judge was correct in granting annual increments for ad hoc service despite administrative refusal?
Whether a writ petition decided by a Division Bench precludes filing a Letters Patent appeal against the same matter?
Whether the appeal filed by the State of Haryana has merit under the Letters Patent?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jai Pal Singh v. State of HaryanaFollowed¶14
Jai Pal Singh v. State of Haryana 1994 (2) S.C.T. 527
Hanumant Singh and others v. State of Haryana and othersFollowed¶15
Hanumant Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others (C.W.P. No. 7862 of 2006)
State of Haryana and others
Dr. Muni Lal
M.M. Kumar
Ritu Bahri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
