Dismissed

Paramjit Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Feb 2011CWP/19503/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, retired teachers, sought annual increments due to service extension for a National Award. Petition was declared infructuous as the claim was already granted, though amendment allowed for challenging subsequent withdrawal of increments.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of as infructuous with liberty to challenge the recent withdrawal of increments.

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

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No.19503 of 2009 #1#

¶2

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

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No.19503 of 2009

¶4

Date of Decision:-10.02.2011

¶5

Paramjit Singh & Anr .

¶6

...... Petitioners .

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Punjab & Ors .

¶9

...... Respondents .

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH .

¶11

Present:Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶12

Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab for respondents no.1 to 4.

¶13

¶14

JASWANT SINGH, J.(ORAL)

¶15

The two petitioners, who have retired as Centre Head Teachers from Government Primary Schools under the Punjab Education Department by filing the present writ petition have claimed benefit of annual increment on account of extension in service after their superannuation from service, since the extension was on account of their having earned National Award for teaching in terms of the Government Instructions dated 16.06.1999 (Annexure P-10).

¶16

Reply by way of affidavit dated 10.08.2010 of Sh. Parminder Singh Brar, Deputy District Education Officer(EE), Faridkot has been filed,

¶17

Civil Writ Petition No.19503 of 2009 #2#

¶18

wherein it has been stated that the competent authority has granted the claim of annual increments to the petitioners in terms of the Government policy (Annexure P-10). In view of this situation, the counsel for the respondent states that the present writ petition has become infructuous.

¶19

In response, counsel for the petitioners states that though the annual increments have been granted in terms of the policy(P-10) but while granting the annual increment and re-fixing the pay, the State Government has withdrawn from the emoluments of petitioner no.1 Paramjit Singh certain earlier increments on the purported wrong fixation/grant. He, therefore, seeks permission to challenge such withdrawal.

¶20

After hearing counsel for the parties, the prayer on behalf of the petitioner no.1 being reasonable is accepted. Accordingly the present writ petition is disposed of as infructuous with liberty to the petitioner no.1Paramjit Singh to challenge the recent withdrawal of increments since a new cause of action has accrued to him.

¶21

( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE

¶22

February 10, 2011 Vinay

Paramjit Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paramjit Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

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

Manjit Kaur Vs Pritpal Singh

Rakhi Dhawan Vs Satyawati & Ors.

Roshni Devi Vs G.K.Pillai, IAS and Ors.

Renu Chaudhary Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Hakam Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Pushpa Devi Vs State of Punjab & Ors.