Allowed

Ram Parkash Verma v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Feb 2012CWP/16891/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the petitioner to have his pay scale stepped up at par with a junior retiree solely for calculating retirement benefits. No arrears of salary were granted. Calculation and payment of benefits were directed within twelve weeks, and the writ petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's pay scale to be stepped up at par with respondent for retirement benefits calculation only; arrears of such benefits to be paid within twelve weeks.

Ram Parkash Verma Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No. 16891 of 2000

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 16891 of 2000 Date of decision February 23, 2012

¶5

Ram Parkash Verma

¶6

....... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab

¶9

........Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶11

Present:Mr. Suram Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. S. Sahu, AAG., Punjab for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶12

Mr. IPS Doabia, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶13

None for respondent No.4.

¶14

¶15

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?No

¶16

To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No

¶17

K. Kannan, J (oral).

¶18

The petitioner seeks for stepping up of the pay to

¶19

bring it at par with the fourth respondent who was junior to him in the post at the point of initial entry into service as well as in the post held as a Senior Assistant. The counsel for the petitioner would point out to the fact that in the seniority list (Annexure P-1) he had been shown as falling in S.No.32 while the fourth respondent was shown in S.No.34. It appears that in an independent writ petition filed by some other employees complaining that some juniors had been promoted on 1.7.1983, this Court had passed

¶20

¶21

CWP No. 16891 of 2000

¶22

an order giving a deemed date of promotion to those seniors who had not obtained the benefit. The fourth respondent had the benefit of the direction given for some persons who had approached this Court and he was also given a deemed date of promotion w.e.f.1.7.1983. Since this was done subsequent to his retirement, only the scales of pay were re-drawn notionally and only the retiral benefits were given to the fourth respondent, for, a junior could not have been drawn higher scales than a senior.

¶23

I would accord to the petitioner the benefit of stepping up of the scale only for the purpose of calculating the retiral benefits and the petitioner will not have any arrears of salary to be drawn on such a basis. The petitioner's scale of pay is directed to be stepped up at par with the fourth respondent as on the date of his retirement. This shall be relevant for the purpose of calculating retiral benefits only. The calculation shall be made and arrears shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶24

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶25

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶26

February 23, 2012 archana

Ram Parkash Verma v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Parkash Verma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maman Singh etc. Vs Parmeshwari Devi

Rahul Raghuvanshi Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

Gurjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Miss Pooja Ahluwalia Vs State of Punjab

Mahavir Singh Dhanda & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors. (Decided Case)

Op Yadav Vs Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana & Ors.