Allowed

Gurdeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC28 May 2014CWP/4719/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petition quashing an order that denied petitioners higher grade of pay. The court held the claim was covered by State of Punjab v. Narain Dass and directed respondents to consider the claim within three months. Arrears restricted to 3 years and 2 months prior to filing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 30.9.2010 quashed; respondents directed to consider petitioners' claim within three months and grant necessary relief within six months; arrears restricted to 3 years and 2 months

Gurdeep Singh & Ors. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No. 4719 of 2013

¶2

-1-

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

CM-6670-CWP-2014 in/and Civil Writ Petition No. 4719 of 2013 Date of Decision: 28.5.2014.

¶5

Gurdeep Singh and others

¶6

.......Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and another

¶9

......Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present: Mr. P.K.Goklaney, Advocate for the applicants-petitioners.

¶12

Mr. R.S.Pathania, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

¶14

SABINA, J.

¶15

This petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to the respondents to grant them higher grade of pay on acquiring/possessing higher qualification.

¶16

Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that this petition be disposed of in terms of order dated 9.9.2011 passed by this Court in CWP No. 20989 of 2010 (Annexure P-9).

¶17

Order Annexure P-9 reads as under:-

¶18

"The claim of the petitioners in the present petition is for granting of grade of B.A/B.Ed/B.T in view of the instructions issued by Government in view of the judgment passed by this Court as well as Judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.4029-4043 of 1996 - State of Punjab and Another

¶19

v. Narain Dass & Others decided on 18.8.1998.

¶20

Singh Gurpreet 2014.05.30 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

¶21

Civil Writ Petition No. 4719 of 2013

¶22

-2-

¶23

Earlier also, the petitioners filed C.W.P.. No.9755 of 2010, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take a decision on the legal notice served upon the respondents within a period of three months vide order dated 25.5.2010. In compliance of the direction issued by this Court on 25.5.2010, the respondents passed an order dated 30.9.2010 and claim of the petitioners have been declined only on the ground that the case of the petitioners is not covered by the case of Narain Dass's case (supra) whereas case of the petitioners is covered by the judgment of State of Punjab & Others v. Om Parkash Kaushal & Others, 1996(5) SCC 325.

¶24

Learned State Counsel has not disputed this fact and submits that the petitioners are entitled to higher pay scale granted to the teachers in government schools on the basis of higher qualification but they cannot claim benefit of any increment in the pay scale on the basis of their acquiring higher qualification, which has been granted to the teachers in government schools.

¶25

Ms. Jyoti Sareen, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submits that the petitioners No.6 and 11 have already been retired even prior to the filing of the present petition.

¶26

In view of the submissions made by counsel for the parties and after perusing judgment rendered in case of Narain Dass's case (supra), I am of the view that case of the petitioners is squarely covered by said judgment

¶27

Singh Gurpreet 2014.05.30 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

¶28

Civil Writ Petition No. 4719 of 2013

¶29

-3-

¶30

rendered in Om Parkash Kaushal's case (supra) has been discussed. The claim of the petitioners have wrongly been rejected by discussing the judgment in the case of Om Parkash Kaushal (supra). Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and impugned order dated 30.9.2010 (Annexure P-8) is quashed and the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners in view of the judgment in the case of Narain Dass's case (supra) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, the necessary relief be granted to the petitioners within six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. However, the arrears would be restricted to the period 3 years and 2 months before the date of filing the writ petition.”

¶31

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of in terms of the decision given by this Court in CWP No. 20989 of 2010 decided on 9.9.2011 (Annexure P-9).

¶32

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶33

May 28, 2014 Gurpreet

¶34

Singh Gurpreet 2014.05.30 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

Gurdeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurdeep Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & 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

Sanjay Kumar Vs Gurpal Kaur

Ali Mohammad & Ors. Vs Amar Chand

Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs M/S Goodyear India Ltd.

Tripta Devi and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Neelam Puri & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Karnail Kaur etc. Vs Gram Panchayat Vill. Jhanjeri Th. Sarpanch & Ors.