Disposed

Sumit Jain and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jul 2012CWP/12575/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of CWP regarding entitlement of partial blind Hindi Master. Court directed authorities to decide on served legal notice within three months and allowed liberty to petitioner No.2.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to decide legal notice within three months; liberty granted to petitioner No.2 to approach court if detriment passed.

Sumit Jain and Anr. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP No.12575 of 2012 Date of decision:09.07.2012

¶3

Sumit Jain and another

¶4

......Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

State of Punjab and others

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

¶9

Present: Mr. Harish Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

¶11

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. (Oral)

¶12

Heard.

¶13

Counsel for the petitioners at the very outset confines this petition only in respect to the grievance of petitioner No.1, who has already been appointed on the post of Hindi Master.

¶14

It is submitted that petitioner No.1 is partial blind and he suffers from disability to the extent of 60%. Petitioner No.1 had applied in respect to an advertisement for filling up 68 posts from the backlog reserved for blind and partial blind persons. In pursuance to his selection and appointment as per condition No.8 contained in the appointment letter, it has been stipulated that he shall be paid Rs.10,300/- lump sum.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that such condition was stipulated in terms of the provisions of Punjab Civil Services (Rationalization of Certain Conditions of Service) Act, 2011 and further submits that this act already stands repealed in terms of Punjab Civil Services (Rationalization of Certain Conditions of Service) Repeal Ordinance, 2011 and as such, a condition of a lump sum amount of

¶16

CWP No.12575 of 2012 -2-

¶17

Rs.10,300/- to be payable to the petitioner can not be sustained. Counsel would accordingly contend that petitioner No.1 would be entitled to the regular pay scale for such post. Even a legal notice as regards such claim has been served upon the Director, Education Department (Secondary Education) Punjab dated 21.11.2011 (Anexxure P-6) but no response has been forthcoming.

¶18

In view of the averments made in the petition and the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to respondent/authorities to take a decision on the legal notice dated 21.11.2011 (Annexure P-6) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order in terms of passing a speaking order.

¶19

At this stage, counsel for the petitioners prays that liberty be granted to petitioner No.2 to approach the Court as and when an order detriment to his interest is passed. Prayer allowed.

¶20

Petition disposed of.

¶21

July 09, 2012 (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) harjeet JUDGE

Sumit Jain and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Jain and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharam Pal Vs the Deputy Secy. to Govt. Haryana Cooperation Department and Ors.

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Faridabad Complex Admn. Faridabad Vs M/S I.O.C.L. and Anr.

Malkiat Singh Vs State Transport Commissioner, Punjab and Anr.

Sukhpal Singh and Anr. Vs Commissioner Ropar Division and Ors.

Karnail Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.