This intra-court appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower court's order. The appellate court held that appellants claim of arrears of pay based on parity was misplaced due to an inordinate delay of 18 years, balancing equity between those who slept on their rights and those who agitated them in time.
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.
LPA No.63 of 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No.63 of 2013(O & M) Date of decision:08.05.2013
Santosh Kumari & another .....Appellants
Versus State of Punjab & others ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Ms.Shital Chandel, Advocate, for the appellants.
G.S.Sandhawalia J.
CM No.180 of 2013
Application for condoning the delay of 14 days in re-filing the appeal is allowed in view of the averments made in the application which are duly supported by an affidavit.
CM Nos.181-82 of 2013
Applications for exemption from filing fair typed copies and for placing on record additional documents (Annexure P-1 to P-5) are allowed in view of the averments made in the applications which are duly supported by an affidavit.
CM Nos.184-85 of 2013
Applications to file the appeal as legal representatives of Piara Lal Bassi are allowed in view of the averments made in the applications which are duly supported by an affidavit and the applicants, being the wife and son of the deceased, Piara Lal Bassi who expired on 03.03.2010, are allowed to be brought on record.
LPA No.63 of 2013 LPA No.63 of 2013
2
3
LPA No.63 of 2013
in view of the aforesaid facts, restricted the relief to the extent that the petitioners would be entitled for the notional fixation of pay, and the pension and other retiral benefits would be revised accordingly. Thus, the present appeal is against the non-payment of arrears from 01.01.1986 to 31.12.1990.
4
LPA No.63 of 2013
slumbered over their rights and the one's who had agitated their rights in time. Accordingly, there is no scope for interference and the present appeal is dismissed. Since the order in the appeal has been passed on merits, no further orders are called for in CM No.183 of 2013, for condoning the delay of 873 days
in filing the appeal.
(G.S.SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE
08.05.2013 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) sailesh JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants, who raised the issue long after the predecessor-in-interest slumbered over their rights, are entitled to arrears of pay for the period 01.01.1986 to 31.12.1990.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the impugned order of the Learned Single Judge which restricted the relief due to inordinate delay.
Whether the principle of parity applies to the appellants given the delay in approaching the court compared to Prem Singh Gill's case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prem Singh Gill & others Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶20
CWP No.457 of 1995
unreportedReferred¶20
LPA No.94 of 2007
unreportedReferred¶19
CWP No.4370 of 2010
Santosh Kumari
another
State of Punjab
others
G.S. Sandhawalia
Ajay Kumar Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
