Petitioners sought a writ mandamus to restore deductions from adhoc relief payments and refix their pay and pension based on specific judgments. The court listed the case for a final decision.
Respondent No. 1 directed to consider the legal notice and take a final decision within four months.
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.
CWP No.21106 OF 2018
--1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.21106 OF 2018 DECIDED ON: AUGUST 28, 2018
ASHOK KUMAR GAIND AND ORS.
.....PETITIONERS..
VERSUS
HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD, PANCHKULA AND ORS.
.....RESPONDENTS..
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH
Present: Mr. Umesh Narang, Advocate, for the petitioners.
JASPAL SINGH, J
Through instant petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have sought issuance of a writ especially in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to restore deduction made from the payment of additional D.A./adhoc relief and refix the pay/pension of the petitioners in revised scale as introduced w.e.f. 01.05.1996 after restoration of deduction/cut of alleged excess payment of adhoc relief and after giving fresh option to them. And further to pay the arrears of pay/pension accruing due to restoration of cut/deduction along with interest @ 12% p.a. in view of judgment dated 11.08.2003 passed in CWP No.4518 of 2000 and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No.8661 of 2009.
though legal notice dated 07.04.2018 (P-7) was duly served upon the
SONIKA 2018.08.31 13:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CWP No.21106 OF 2018
--2--
respondents but till date neither any response has been received nor any conscious decision has been taken. He further submits that petitioners feel satisfied in case direction is issued to respondent No.4 to take conscious decision on legal notice (P-7), within a stipulated period.
AUGUST 28, 2018 (JASPAL SINGH) sonika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes/No
SONIKA 2018.08.31 13:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether issuance of writ under Article 226 is required to direct the respondent to restore deductions of adhoc relief and refix pay/pension?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
ASHOK KUMAR GAIND AND ORS.
HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD, PANCHKULA AND ORS.
JASPAL SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
