This Letters Patent Appeal contested an order declining arrears of pay for appellants whose termination was set aside. The Court held that consequential benefits did not automatically follow due to the underlying contention regarding eligibility of Haryana degrees for Punjab employment.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Letters Patent Appeal No.1258 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 16, 2016
Swaranjit Kaur and another
......Appellants
versus
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA.
*******
Present: Mr.Anil Rathee, Advocate, for the appellants.
-.-
Surya Kant, J . (Oral)
This letters patent appeal assails the order dated 11.04.2016 whereby learned Single Judge has declined to award arrears of pay to the appellants for the period from May, 1992 to October, 1993 when they were out of service due to termination of services.
Learned Single Judge has taken notice of the settled principles of law that ordinarily when termination order is set-aside, the consequential benefits must follow, namely, the arrears of pay would be admissible. He has nevertheless drawn distinction keeping in view the fact that it was not a case where any executive authority was responsible for illegal and reckless termination of services of the appellants. It is a case where the appellants had obtained JBT degrees from the State of Haryana which were de-
recognized for Government service in the State of Punjab. Resultantly, the Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.09.28 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
LPA No.1258 of 2016 (O&M)
[2]
services of appellants were terminated. The matter was agitated before this Court and finally it reached before Full Bench to determine whether the incumbents who had obtained diploma/degree from the State of Haryana are eligible for public employment in the State of Punjab? The question was answered in affirmative and the appellants' termination orders stood setaside. As there were contentious issues, hence the learned Single Judge has rightly held that consequential benefits cannot follow automatically. On the same premise, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shobha Ram Raturi versus Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and others, 2016(1) SLR 494 is also distinguishable.
For the reasons afore-stated, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
| [SURYA KANT] JUDGE |
|
|---|---|
| September 16, 2016 mohinder |
[SUDIP AHLUWALIA] JUDGE |
| Whether speaking/reasoned | : Yes/No |
| Whether Reportable | : Yes/No |
Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.09.28 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether arrears of pay are admissible when termination orders are set aside in cases involving competency disputes without executive misconduct.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mohinder Kumar KambojReferred¶19
Mohinder Kumar Kamboj
Shobha Ram Raturi versus Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and othersDistinguished¶22
Shobha Ram Raturi versus Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and others, 2016(1) SLR 494
Swaranjit Kaur and another
State of Punjab and others
Surya Kant
Sudip Ahluwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
