Disposed

Sushma Gupta and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Nov 2011CWP/21075/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The bench disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of Rule 10 of Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules 2008. Following a Division Bench directive, the court directed respondents to grant increment benefits to petitioners from their original increment dates.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to restore increments to petitioners from their original increment dates within two months of receiving the order.

Sushma Gupta and Ors. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP No. 21075 of 2011 Date of Decision: 15.11.2011.

¶3

Sushma Gupta & others

¶4

--Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Haryana & others

¶7

--Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI.

¶9

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

¶10

Present:Mr. H.N. Khanduja, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

¶12

PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL)

¶13

Notice of motion.

¶14

Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana has been asked to accept

¶15

notice on behalf of respondents-State.

¶16

Petitioners herein have filed these petitions seeking quashment of Rule 10 of the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 being ultra vires with an alternative prayer to direct the respondents to grant them the benefit of increment on 1.1.2006 and 1.7.2006 as has been granted to those employees for whom the date of next increment was between 1.7.2006 to 1.1.2007.

¶17

Admittedly, the issue involved in the present writ petitions is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgement of this Court rendered in CWP No. 16975 of 2010 followed in CWP No. 18134 of 2011 decided on 26.9.2011. The Hon'ble Division Bench while examining the issue in CWP No. 16975 of 2010 issued following directions:-

¶18

“ For the reasons aforementioned these petitions succeed. The date of increment of 1^st July is declared as ultra

¶19

CWP No. 21075 of 2011 -2-

¶20

vires of Article 14 of the Constitution in respect of those employees who earn their increment between 1^st of January to 30^th of June. It is directed that the petitioners and all other such employees shall be given increment on the date when they originally earn increment. The respondents shall undertake the exercise of restoring these increments to the petitioners from the date they originally earn their increments. The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶21

In view of the above, this petition is disposed of in terms of the

¶22

aforementioned directions. Petitioners shall be entitled to similar relief as granted in the above referred writ petition.

¶23

(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE

¶24

(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE

¶25

15.11.2011. lucky

Sushma Gupta and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushma Gupta and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vibhuti Yadav Vs Haryana Public Service Commission & Ors.

Ram Vir Singh Vs Vice Chancellor, Dbcr, Sonepat and Ors.

Jyoti Vs B.P.S. Mahila Vishwavidyalaya and Aors.

Tulsa Rani Vs Union of India and Ors.

Dharam Pal Vs State of Haryana & Others

Malkit Ram Vs Union of India and Ors.