Dismissed

Hari Kishan v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Jul 2014CWP/3484/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought deemed promotion date of 01.01.1988 based on parity with two other employees who were similarly regularized. Court dismissed petition noting that the regularization earlier granted to other employees was withdrawn following superior instructions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's petition for deemed promotion date and consequential benefits was dismissed.

Hari Kishan Vs Haryana Vidyut… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CWP No.3484 of 2013 (O&M)

¶2

KUMAR MANOJ #1# 2015.02.06 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

¶4

AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CWP No.3484 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.7.2014

¶6

Hari Kishan

¶7

.............Petitioner

¶8

¶9

Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd and Ors.

¶10

.............Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶12

Present:- Mr. Vikas Bali, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

None for the respondents.

¶14

Jaswant Singh,J

¶15

Petitioner has filed the present writ petition for directing the respondents to consider the deemed date of his promotion of the petitioner as Store Munshi w.e.f 01.01.1988 instead of 13.08.1990 and to grant him all consequential service benefits.

¶16

It is contended that in view of the fact two other employees of the Corporation in his cadre have been granted the benefit of deemed date of promotion w.e.f 1.1.1988 by S.E, Rohtak vide letter dated 03.10.2007 (P.8) and thus, the petitioner is also entitled for the same relief.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book with their able assistance.

¶18

The sole contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the services of two other employees, namely, Om

¶19

#2#

¶20

CWP No.3484 of 2013 (O&M)

¶21

Parkash and Umed Singh on the post of Store Munshi were regularized by the S.E, Rohtak vide order dated 03.10.2007 (P.8) and thus the petitioner is also entitled for the same relief in view of parity of treatment.

¶22

None appeared on behalf of the respondents but a detailed reply is already there on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶23

A perusal of office order No.100/2013 dated 02.05.2013 (R.6) attached with the reply reveals that the earlier order dated 03.10.2007 (P.8) thereby granting the benefit of regularization w.e.f 01.01.1988 in favour of other two employees, namely, Om Parkash and Umed Singh against whom the petitioner is claiming parity, already stands withdrawn in compliance of the Memo No.Ch-53/PF-5009 dated 30.4.2013 issued from the office of Managing Director (SE/Admn-II).

¶24

It is also apparent that in the memo dated 30.04.2013, the S.E, Rohtak was advised to fix the responsibility of the erring officer/officials for granting the deemed date of regularization to the aforesaid two officials without following the Instructions dated 08.02.1988 issued by the Board after a gap of 19 years.

¶25

In view of the above, no ground is made to interfere.

¶26

Dismissed.

¶27

July 15, 2014 manoj

¶28

(Jaswant Singh) Judge

Hari Kishan v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Kishan v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. 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

Yogesh Mahajan Vs State Information Commission Haryana & Ors.

Satbir Singh Sangwan and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

M/S Vishal Protection Force Vs Principal Secretary to Govt. of Hary. & Ors.

Sube Singh Vs State of Haryana &Ors

Rajnish Kumar Mehta Vs Pspcl and Ors.

Sonu Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.