The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash a circular calculating proficiency step up based on regular service only.
Petition dismissed; no direction issued to count work-charge service for proficiency step up.
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.18171 of 2003 Date of Decision : February 10, 2011.
Manmohan Singh ..... Petitioner versus The State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
Present : None for the petitioner.
Ms.Monica Chhibbar Sharma, 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?
(Oral) Surya Kant, J.
The petitioner seeks quashing of the Circular dated 29.10.1991 (Annexure P-10) whereby the respondents have taken into account only the regular service while reckoning 8/16 years of service for the purposes of granting the proficiency step up. The petitioner also seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to count the work-charge service for the afore-said service benefits. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Workers Union versus The State of Punjab and others, 2008 (5) SLR 684 as well as a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board and others versus Jagjiwan Ram and others (2009) 3 SCC 661, no case to issue the desired direction is made out.
Dismissed.
February 10, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondent authorities are bound to count work-charge service along with regular service for granting proficiency step up benefits.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
The Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Workers Union versus The State of Punjab and othersReferred¶12
The Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Workers Union versus The State of Punjab and others, 2008 (5) SLR 684
Punjab State Electricity Board and others versus Jagjiwan Ram and othersReferred¶12
Punjab State Electricity Board and others versus Jagjiwan Ram and others (2009) 3 SCC 661 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manmohan Singh
The State of Punjab
Surya Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
