This order disposed a writ petition challenging a consideration of a pension notional promotion claim. The court held the petitioners remedy was infructuous as a coordinate Bench order had been complied with, without adjudicating merits of the objection.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
COCP No. 2331 of 2013
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
COCP No. 2331 of 2013
Date of Decision: September 6, 2013
Sulakhan Mal
…..Petitioner
Vs.
Rajpal Meena and another
…..Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.
-.-
Present:Mr.Rajiv Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner.
-.-
M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)
Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated February 1, 2013, a direction was issued by a Coordinate Bench of this Court to the Director General of Police, (Prison) to consider the claim of the petitioner for notional promotion and re-fixation of pension to the effect that petitioner will make a representation within a period of four weeks from the date of the order and it would be considered and decided within a period of three months of submission of such representation and in case the petitioner is held entitled to consequential benefits on acceptance of his
Gupta Sanjay 2013.09.09 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
COCP No. 2331 of 2013
[2]
representation, the same would be released within a further period of one month. The representation submitted by the petitioner annexure P-8 has been considered vide annexure P-10.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order annexure P-10 has been passed casually without considering the claim of the petitioner for release of the pension in the revised rates pursuant to the notional promotion to the petitioner.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. While disposing of the writ petition of the petitioner vide order dated February 1, 2013, the direction given seems to have been complied with but the petitioner is not satisfied with the order annexure P-10 claiming that the case of the petitioner has not been considered objectively for the release of notional benefits and existing pensionary benefits.
While exercising the contempt jurisdiction, it does not appear to be within the ambit of jurisdiction of this Court to consider the legality and propriety of the order annexure P-10 to determine the rights of the petitioner on merits. Since the order dated February 1, 2013 has been complied with by considering the representation of the petitioner, this petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to challenge the legality and validity of annexure P-10, if advised so.
September 6, 2013 sanjay
(M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE
Gupta Sanjay 2013.09.09 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
COCP No. 2331 of 2013
[3]
Gupta Sanjay 2013.09.09 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
Sulakhan Mal
Rajpal Meena
M.M.S. Bedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
