A writ petition seeking direction for pay enhancement to match respondent No. 3. The court disposed of the matter without passing on merits, directing the State to issue a reasoned order regarding the legal notice within three months.
Direction to the State to pass a speaking order on the legal notice within three 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 13930 of 2020 Date of decision 09.09.2020
Devinder Kumar and ors.
...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and ors.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Nitesh Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Ritu Bahri, J. (Oral)
This petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 2 to step up the pay of the petitioners at par with respondent No. 3 w.e.f 10.03.2012, especially in view of speaking order dated 21.11.2019 (P-8) passed by the department in view of the judgment dated 22.08.2019 passed by this Court in CWP No. 22404-2019 titled as Rohit Garg and others vs. State of Punjab and others.
Issue notice of motion.
On asking of the Court, Ms. Lavanya Paul, AAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.
Without commenting upon the merits of the case, this petition is being disposed of by giving direction to respondent No. 1 and 2 to decide the legal notice dated 12.05.2020 (P-7) by passing a speaking order expeditiously, in view of judgment passed by this Court dated 22.08.2019. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(RITU BAHRI) 09.09.2020 JUDGE G Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
GAURAV ARORA 2020.09.11 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent-State is compelled by a prior judgment to step up petitioner pay at par with respondent No. 3 retrospectively.
Whether a speaking order is required expeditiously to decide the legal notice sent by the petitioners regarding pay enhancement.
Whether to grant the prayer for pay parity w.e.f. 10.03.2012 immediately.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Devinder Kumar and ors.
State of Punjab and ors.
Ritu Bahri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
