Remanded

Ravi Bhushan v. HUDA and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Nov 2013CWP/10299/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerns the petitioner's claim for accelerated pay across to a reserve category counterpart. The High Court set aside the order denying the claim due to erroneous reliance on superseded instructions and directed HUDA to reconsider the matter in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in M.Nagaraj vs. Union of India and the High Court's own decision in Prem Kumar Verma.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order and directed the Chief Administrator, HUDA to reconsider the petitioner's claim for stepping up of pay within three months.

Ravi Bhushan Vs HUDA and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Raj Kumar Arora 2013.12.06 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶2

CWP-10299-2012 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP-10299-2012 (O&M). Decided on: November 22, 2013.

Ravi Bhushan

..... Petitioner

Versus

Haryana Urban Development Authority and others

¶9

..... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI

¶11

PRESENT Mr.K.L.Dhingra, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Ajay Nara, Advocate, for the respondents

¶13

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

¶14

The claim of the petitioner for stepping up of pay to the level of respondent No.4, a reserve category candidate who had been granted accelerated promotion as Assistant has been denied on the ground that the petitioner himself had foregone promotion to the post of S.D.C., for two years vide letter dated 16.8.2005. The order denying the benefit to the petitioner on the basis of instructions dated 23.11.2009 has been appended as Annexure R2 which reads as under: -

¶15

“Reference on the subject noted above.

¶16

It is intimated that the case regarding stepping up of your pay at par with your junior counterpart Sh.Kanwar Chand Rawat, Assistant of B.C. Category has been considered and found that

¶17

¶18

Raj Kumar Arora 2013.12.06 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CWP-10299-2012 (O&M)

¶20

you have been promoted as Assistant on 3.6.2009 after the cut off date i.e. 15.3.2006 for General Category employees as per Chief Secretary to Government Haryana instructions dated 23.11.2009. It is also intimated that you have forgo your promotion to the post of SDC for two years. Hence, you are not eligible for grant of benefit of stepping up at par with your junior Sh.Kanwar Chand, Assistant.”

¶21

It appears that the cut off date i.e. 15.3.2006 has lost importance in view of the judgment in case Prem Kumar Verma Vs.State of Haryana, CWP No.17280 of 2011, decided on 7.8.2012. The instructions dated 16.3.2006 vide which the State of Haryana had granted accelerated seniority to the scheduled castes category employees has been struck down in Prem Kumar Verma's case on the basis of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in M.Nagraj Vs.Union of India, 2006(8) SCC 212 .

¶22

Counsel for the petitioner at this stage, submits that the petitioner will be satisfied in case a direction is issued to the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in the light of dictum of Prem Kumar Verma's case.

¶23

Order Annexure R2 dated 25.9.2012 is hereby set aside with a direction to the Chief Administrator, HUDA to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of judgment in case Prem Kumar Verma (supra) within a period of three months after the receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case the above said authority deems

¶24

¶25

Raj Kumar Arora 2013.12.06 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CWP-10299-2012 (O&M)

¶27

appropriate an opportunity would be given to the petitioner to put forth his claim. It will be appreciated in case a detailed speaking order is passed while considering the claim of the petitioner. It will be open to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation within a period

¶28

of one week for effective consideration by the above said authority.

¶29

(M.M.S. BEDI) November 22, 2013. JUDGE rka

¶30

Ravi Bhushan v. HUDA and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Bhushan v. HUDA 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Daljit Singh Virk Vs Mandeep Singh Sandhu, IAS

Geeta Rani Vs State of Haryana etc.

Sharda Rani Vs Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram University of Sci & Tec. Ors.

Gian Chand Vs Ajay Madan and Others

Mai Chand Vs P.D. Verma

Tanvir Hussain Vs Jagpal Sandhu & Ors.