Disposed

Hardial Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Sept 2018CWP/24470/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this CWP, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the State of Punjab authorities to grant additional increments and placement in a higher scale under the Assured Career Progression Scheme, along with revised pensionary benefits and arrears.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent authority to look into the petitioner's grievances and take a conscious decision within three months of receiving the certified copy of the order.

Hardial Singh Vs State of Punjab… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

CWP No.24470 OF 2018

¶2

--1--

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.24470 OF 2018 DECIDED ON: SEPTEMBER 25, 2018

HARDIAL SINGH

....PETITIONER..

VS.

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS.

¶9

....RESPONDENTS..

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH

¶11

Present:Mr. Virinder K. Shukla, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

JASPAL SINGH, J.

¶14

Through instant petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the benefit of additional increments under proficiency step -up scheme and placement in higher scale on completion of 4/9/14 years of service under Assured Career Progression Scheme as per Punjab Govt. Policies dated 01.12.1988 (P-1), 25.09.1998 (P-2) and dated 03.11.2006 (P-3) and in view of memo dated 09.09.2016 (P-4), and to fix his pay and revised pensionary benefits accordingly and to give the consequent arrears thereof on account of revision of pay and revised pensionary benefits viz. Pension, gratuity and leave encashment etc. along with interest thereon @ 12% p.a.

¶15

At the very outset of the arguments, learned counsel for the

¶16

SONIKA 2018.09.26 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

CWP No.24470 OF 2018

¶18

--2--

¶19

petitioner submits that petitioner moved various representations including demand notice dated 10.08.2018 (P-8) but till date neither any response has been received nor any conscious decision has been taken by the respondents.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner feels satisfied in case direction is issued to respondents to decide aforesaid demand notice (P-8), in a time bound manner.

¶21

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, instant petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents particularly No.2Director, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat, SAS Nagar Mohali to look into the grievances unfolded by the petitioner in demand notice dated 10.08.2018 (P-8) and to take a conscious decision, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶22

However, if petitioner still feels aggrieved by any of the orders passed by the concerned authority, he shall be at liberty to have recourse to other remedies available under law including to approach this Court.

¶23

SEPTEMBER 25, 2018 (JASPAL SINGH) sonika JUDGE

¶24

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶25

SONIKA 2018.09.26 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Hardial Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hardial Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kusum and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Prem Chand Vs State of Haryana & Others

Hawa Singh Hooda Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Amar Singh Vs Haryana Vidut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. & Anr.

Rohtash Kumar Bansal & Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Kiran Bala Vs State of Punjab and Ors.