Disposed

Madhu Sudhan v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Oct 2012CWP/21175/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the non-determination of seniority. The court directed authorities to decide the claim strictly according to Rule 11 of relevant rules and pass a speaking order within four months, clarifying that any deemed seniority would yield only notional pay fixation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent-authorities to consider the petitioner's claim and decide a legal notice and pass a speaking order within four months.

Madhu Sudhan Vs State of Punjab… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No.21175 of 2012

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.21175 of 2012 Date of decision:-19.10.2012

Madhu Sudan

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA

¶11

Present:Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA J.(Oral)

¶13

The petitioner, who belong to the Master cadre and is aggrieved of the action of the respondent-authorities in not determining his seniority in terms of Rule 11 of the Punjab State Education Class-III (School Cadre) Service Rules, 1978. In terms of proviso to Rule 11 of the 1978 Rules the seniority of the members of the cadre, who has been recruited by direct appointment is to be governed on the basis of the merit determined by the recruiting agency.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the seniority is in fact being reckoned from the date of joining, which is in contravention to the statutory rules. Counsel would further submit

¶15

CWP No.21175 of 2012

¶16

-2-

¶17

that the claim of the petitioner would be squarely covered by a Division Bench judgement of this Court dated 9.7.2004 rendered in case of Charan Dass Sharma Vs. State of Punjab & others (CWP No. 19832 of 2003) . Counsel further submits that even a legal notice dated 26.8.2012 (Annexure P-5) already stands submitted in this respect and is pending consideration.

¶18

In the light of the averments made in the petition, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondent-authorities to consider the claim of the petitioners and decide the legal notice dated 26.8.2012 (Annexure P-5) strictly in accordance with law and by passing a speaking order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶19

It is clarified that in the event of the petitioners being given the benefit of deemed seniority, they would be entitled to the consequential benefit of pay fixation only on notional basis.

¶20

Petition disposed of.

¶21

October 19 , 2012 ( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) Vijay Asija JUDGE

Madhu Sudhan v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhu Sudhan v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Unique Wine Company Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Manmohan Singh Vs Punjab Khadi Board and Ors.

Cit, Faridabad Vs Joginder Singh M/S Sabharwal Electronics Faridabad

M/S Nijjer Agro Foods Ltd. and Ors. Vs International Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd.

Akash Rice Mill and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Santokh Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.