Allowed

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Aug 2011CWP/14500/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition by a retired instructor. The court quashed an order denying a pay increment based on continuous service. It directed the respondent to re-examine the claim using uncontroverted evidence of continuous service and dispose of the matter within four months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; respondents directed to re-examine claim based on Memo dated 28.09.1967 and dispose within four months.

Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

C.WP No. 14500 of 2009 . [O&M] Date of Decision: 16^th August, 2011 .

¶3

Gian Singh

¶4

Petitioner through Ms. Maninder Kaur, Advocate

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab & Ors.

¶7

Respondents through Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶9

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶10

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶11

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL]

¶13

The petitioner, while seeking quashing of the speaking order 08.09.2006 [Annexure P-17], prays for the grant of one additional increment on account of passing of another Trade Examination. The afore-stated relief has been sought on the basis of the instructions dated 28.05.1965 [Annexure P-9]. The petitioner also wants a direction for re-fixation of his pay w.e.f. 1.11.1987 and other consequential benefits. The afore-stated multiple reliefs have been sought by the petitioner after his retirement from the post of Instructor from the Industrial Training Institute, Nangal, District Ropar.

¶14

One of the reasons assigned in the impugned order to reject the petitioner's claim is that he was appointed as Blacksmith Instructor on 14.8.1964 and on abolition of the said post on 31.10.1967, he was adjusted as 'Store Keeper' in the pay scale of 120-200. The petitioner was again adjusted as Instructor w.e.f. 07.02.1968. The respondents therefore maintain that the petitioner's

¶15

services as Instructor are not un-interrupted and the same have been rightly counted w.e.f. 07.02.1968 only. In other words, the respondents have declined to count the petitioner's services w.e.f. 14.08.1964 on the plea that he did not serve as an Instructor continuously as in between he held the post of Store Keeper also.

¶16

The petitioner on the other hand denies that he was ever adjusted as a Store Keeper. He relies upon an order dated 28.09.1967 [Annexure P-6] which suggests that on abolition of the post of Blacksmith Instructor, he was 'adjusted as Allied Trade Instructor in the grade of 120-8-200 on the strength of ITI, Gurdaspur.......”. An averment to this effect has been made by the petitioner in Para No. 7 of the writ petition. The respondents in Para No. 7 of their reply/affidavit dated 11.11.2010 state as follows:-

¶17

“ 7. That the contents of Para No. 7 of the petition are matter of record. However, it is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Blacksmith Instructor purely on adhoc basis and as such he joined his duty on 14.8.1964. Later on the post of Blacksmith Instructor, against which the petitioner was serving, was abolished as the post became surplus as it was created purely on adhoc basis. As such the petitioner became surplus and he was adjusted as Store Keeper in the pay scale of Rs.120-200. Again he was adjusted against the post of Instructor on 7.2.1968. After that he continuously served on that post. So the petitioner has been senior and other benefits w.e.f. 7.2.1968 that is the date of the joining of the petitioner against the post of Instructor. The service of the petitioner before 7.2.1968 was purely on temporary/adhoc basis and not on regular basis”.

¶18

It may, thus, be seen that the contents of Memo dated 28.9.1967 [Annexure P-6] have not been controverted by the

¶19

respondents. If that is so, the petitioner appears to be right in contending that he continued to serve as an Instructor only. Be that as it may, the question as to whether the petitioner worked as Allied Trade Instructor or not, is a question of fact and it is obligatory on the respondents to verify its correctness and thereafter dispose of the petitioner's case by passing a speaking order.

¶20

For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 08.09.2006 [Annexure P-17] is quashed and the respondents are directed to re-examine the petitioner's claim in the light of the Memo dated 28.09.1967 [Annexure P-6] and thereafter dispose of his various claims, noticed above, within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received.

¶21

Disposed of. Dasti .

¶22

August 16, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

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

Sanjay Vs State of Haryana

Gurcharan Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Seema and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Mehak Yadav and Anr. Vs Pt. B.D Sharma Uni and Ors.

Gurnaib Singh Vs State of Pb. & Ors.

Parveen Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.