Disposed

Vir Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Sept 2019CWP/8105/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a public interest matter concerning delayed promotion benefits, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's pending representation regarding ACP within three months, ensuring any arrears are calculated from the date of submission.

What did the court decide?

Direction to decide pending representation within three months within time bound period.

Vir Devinder Singh Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

CWP-8105-2019

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP-8105-2019 Date of decision: - 16.09.2019

¶5

Vir Devinder Singh

¶6

....Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and others

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

¶11

Present: - Mr. Sunny Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner argues that though initially the petitioner was promoted as a Kanungo in the year 1998 and he had served on the said post for a period of four years before seeking reversion to the post of Patwari and thereafter, he was again promoted as Kanungoo vide order dated 11.08.2015 (Annexure P-6), but he has not been granted the benefit of ACP from the year 2002 till 2015 on the ground that he had foregone his promotion, which is illegal.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner further argues that there is no rule, which disentitled the petitioner for getting the benefit of ACP while working on the post of Patwari, though, he had sought reversion himself to the said post.

¶16

Counsel for the petitioner states that for claiming the benefit of ACP on the post of Patwari from 2002 till 2015, petitioner has

¶17

NARESH KUMAR 2019.09.18 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

CWP-8105-2019

¶19

-2-

¶20

submitted the respondents a representation dated 03.11.2018 (Annexure P-4), which is still pending consideration with the respondents and the petitioner will be satisfied, at this stage, in case a time bound direction is issued to the respondents to decide the said representation by passing a speaking order.

¶21

In view of the request made, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the claim being made by the petitioner, the respondents are directed to decide the representation dated 03.11.2018 (Annexure P-4) by passing a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case after the decision, it is found that the petitioner is entitled for any monetary benefit, the same shall also be released to him within a period of three months thereafter.

¶22

However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner is found entitled for the benefit, the arrears, if any, shall be restricted from the date of submitting the above-said representation.

¶23

Present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶24

September 16, 2019 naresh.k

¶25

( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI ) JUDGE

¶26

Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes Whether reportable? No

¶27

NARESH KUMAR 2019.09.18 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Vir Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vir Devinder Singh 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

Shiv Kumar Sharma Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Kewal Krishan Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Kesho Ram Goel Vs Dhbvnl and Ors.

Pal Singh Vs Harjit Singh

Rajender Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Shamsher Singh Vs Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.