Quashed

Sompal v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and Other

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Jul 2019CWP/6812/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the rejection of his promotion petition because his pay was lower than a co-worker appointed later. The High Court quashed the reasoned but hasty order for lack of reasoning and remitted it to pass a reasoned order with hearing within two months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the petitioner's pay anomaly claim is quashed and the matter is remitted to the Divisional Office to decide the representation by passing a speaking order after an opportu

Sompal Vs Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

CWP No.6812 of 2019 (O&M) {1}

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP No.6812 of 2019 (O&M) Date of decision:19.07.2019

Sompal

... Petitioner

Vs.

Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others

¶8

... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶10

Present:Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

¶12

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)

¶13

C.M.No.5612 of 2019

¶14

The application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Letters dated 22.06.2018 (Annexure P-9) and 16.07.2018 (Annexure P-10) are taken on record.

¶15

CWP No.6812 of 2019

¶16

Sole contention of petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of ALM on 14.06.2014 whereas Sombir-respondent No.5, on 28.6.2017. His pay Rs.28700/- is less than that of Sombir vis-a-vis Rs.30500/- and in this regard submitted a representation dated 10.12.2018 (Annexure P-7) seeking pay anomaly. The aforementioned representation has erroneously been rejected vide order dated 02.01.2019 (Annexure P-8).

¶17

Notice of motion.

¶18

SAVITA KADIAN 2019.07.23 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶19

CWP No.6812 of 2019 (O&M) {2}

¶20

On asking of Court, Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondents-State and submits that impugned order has been passed in compliance of the directions of this Court.

¶21

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. It would be in the fitness of things to extract the impugned order dated 02.01.2019 which reads thus:-

¶22

“From

¶23

Xen/OP City Divn. DHBVN, Bhiwani. To

¶24

Sh. Sompal ALM, S/o Sh. Mahabir Singh, working under Op S/Divn. No.1. DHBVN,Tosham Memo No.19345 dated 2/1/19

¶25

Subject: To settle the pay anomaly. Please refer your application dated 10.12.2018.

¶26

In this connection, your request application is

¶27

hereby returned with the observation that pay of the Sh. Sombir Singh ALM has been fixed after granting of deemed date from 2012 in compliance of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 24.10.2017 in CWP No.3040 of 2017 whereas you have been appointed in 2014, therefore, your request application to settle pay anomaly at par with Sombir Singh ALM is not feasible.

¶28

SAVITA KADIAN 2019.07.23 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶29

{3}

¶30

CWP No.6812 of 2019 (O&M)

¶31

This is for your information please.

¶32

Xen/OP City Divn. DHBVN, Bhiwani. Endst. No.19345 dated 2.1.2019

¶33

Copy of the above is forwarded to SDO Op S/Divn. No.1 Tosham w.r.t his office memo no.3658 dated 10.12.2018 & he is requested to deliver correspondence with dated acknowledgment.

¶34

Xen/OP City Divn.

¶35

DHBVN, Bhiwani.

¶36

It is astounded that a person at the level of Xen cannot

¶37

apprehend simple and plain grievance addressed in the representation. If at all Sombir Singh, has been given pay fixation, service rules do not permit more pay than that of petitioner. No such reasoning has been assigned in the order, thus, order is wholly bereft of any reasoning and same is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to Xen Op City Division DHBVN, Bhiwani to decide representation of petitioner in most reasonable and pragmatic manner by passing a speaking order after affording the opportunity of hearing within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶38

In case, representation is not decided within aforementioned specified time, there shall be costs of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the concerned officer to the petitioner.

¶39

Disposed of.

¶40

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE July 19, 2019 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶41

SAVITA KADIAN 2019.07.23 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Sompal v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sompal v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and Other

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

Amit Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Kavita Vs State of Haryana and Others

Raj Kumar Vs the Staff Selection Commissioner, Haryana and Another

Sheela Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Parshant Atkaan Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

G.S. Bhardwaj Vs State of Haryana and Others