Disposed

Udaideep Khungar v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Nov 2021CWP/7806/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

While appreciating an amicable resolution for the petitioner to join duties as a Medical Officer on General Duty, the court directed the Health Services to address the salary controversy by recording specific reasons within two months and stay the effect of a disciplinary report until verified by a competent Medical Board.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 directed to record reasons for withholding work and disburse salary if entitled within two months; impugned report dated 11.09.2018 stayed pending Medical Board verification.

Udaideep Khungar Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2021)

¶1

Sr. No. 209

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP-7806-2020 Date of decision: 09.11.2021

¶4

Udaideep Khungar …Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others ...Respondents

¶5

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶6

Present: Mr. Sardavinder Goyal, Advocate, along with petitioner in person.

¶7

Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana.

¶8

¶9

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

¶10

Pursuant to order dated 14.10.2021 passed by this Court, Dr. Udaideep Khungar-petitioner and Dr.Govind Gupta, Principal Medical Officer, Hisar-respondent No.4 are present in person.

¶11

This Court appreciates their approach to resolve the entire controversy in an amicable manner, by having taken an administrative decision that, for the time being, petitioner would be allowed to join duties as Medical Officer on General duty, instead of assigning him the duty of an Anaesthetist, which he is.

¶12

As regards the arrears of salary, it is the case of the petitioner that in the absence of any administrative action against the petitioner and for no fault of his, he was not allowed to work, he is therefore entitled to 100% of salary. However, the same is controverted by the Principal Medical Officer, who is present in Court, saying that petitioner on his own volition did not report for work. He is,therefore, not entitled to any salary on the principle of ‘no work no pay’.

¶13

VANDANA 2021.11.10 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

Be that as it may, respondent No.2-Director General Health Services, Haryana shall pass an appropriate administrative order, by going into the controversy qua the reporting/not allowing the petitioner to carry on work, despite being available, by recording specific reasons thereof, within a period of two months from today. In case, petitioner is found entitled to payment of arrears of salary, the same be disbursed to him within a period of two months thereafter.

¶15

As regards the impugned report dated 11.09.2018 (Annexure P-12), the same is directed to be kept at abeyance and not to be given any effect thereof, unless, of course, the competent authority deems it fit that same needs to be verified by way of constituting an appropriate Medical Board in accordance with law. It is however, made clear that if any such steps are being taken, an independent Medical Board shall be constituted by approaching the Director PGIMER, Chandigarh and under his aegis.

¶16

6. Disposed of accordingly.

¶17

09.11.2021 (ARUN MONGA) vandana JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶18

VANDANA 2021.11.10 12:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Udaideep Khungar v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udaideep Khungar v. State of Haryana and Others

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

Vikash and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Rekha Vs State of Haryana and Others

Yogit Vs State of Haryana and Others

Dushyant Vs State of Haryana and Others

Amar Nath (Deceased) through Lr Prem Lata Jindal Vs Anil Mittal and Others

Nitesh Bansal Vs State of Ut Chandigarh