Partly allowed

Neelam Kumari v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Oct 2016CWP/22513/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged lack of benefit of higher revised pay scale despite similar treatment in another writ petition. Court directed respondents to decide representation within three months and grant relief if entitled within two months thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Directions to respondents (2 to 4) to decide representation within three months and grant relief within two months thereafter if petitioner entitled.

Neelam Kumari Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP No.22513 of 2016 Date of decision: 27.10.2016

Neelam Kumari

..Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

¶7

..Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

¶9

Present: Mr. Yagyadeep, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

¶11

Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similarly situated persons have been granted benefit of higher revised pay scale vide order passed in CWP No. 22422 of 2010 dated 16.05.2012. The case of the petitioner is at par with those employees, who filed the said petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made representation dated 22.07.2015, which is annexed as Annexure P-5 with the writ petition but no order has been passed thereupon so far. Petitioner would be satisfied in case directions are issued by this Court to decide the representation filed by her within some stipulated period.

¶13

Keeping in view the limited prayer of the petitioner, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No. 2 to 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner and take necessary action in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. In case, the petitioner is found to be entitled for the relief

¶14

Neetu Rani 2016.11.03 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶15

CWP No.22513 of 2016

¶16

¶17

sought in the representation and the case of the petitioner is at par with petitioners in CWP No. 22422 of 2010, she be granted the same benefit within a period of two months thereafter. In case, the petitioner is still aggrieved by any action of the respondents, she is at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy.

¶18

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶19

27.10.2016		(DAYA CHAUDHARY)
neetu	Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable	JUDGE √ Yes/No √ Yes/No

¶20

Neetu Rani 2016.11.03 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Neelam Kumari v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelam Kumari v. State of Punjab 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

Satish Kumar Ojha & Anr. Vs the Punjab State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. & Ors.

Darshan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Vivek Soi Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gurnam Dass Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Amandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Rajinder Parshad Vs State of Punjab & Ors.