Disposed

Jai Ram v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Apr 2022CWP/15089/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A 25-year-old civil writ petition seeking direction to place the petitioner in a revised pay scale was disposed of without hearing due to effluxion of time and lack of representation. The court noted lack of admissibility on merits based on preliminary objections but granted liberty to file a fresh application.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to file an appropriate application if any cause of action survives.

Jai Ram Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2022)

¶1

Sr. No.324

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP-15089-1996 Date of decision: 05.04.2022

¶4

Jai Ram …Petitioner Vs.

¶5

State of Haryana and another …Respondents

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶7

Present: None for the petitioner.

¶8

Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Additional A.G., Haryana.

¶9

¶10

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

¶11

Petition was filed in the year 1996 , inter alia seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to put the petitioner in the revised scale of Rs.1640-2900/- meant for the post of Head Assistant with effect from 17.03.1989 with consequential benefits

¶12

Petition was admitted on 26.09.1996.

¶13

When called out for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It seems that by sheer effluxion of time and pendency of the writ petition for more than 25 years before this Court, either it has been rendered infructuous or even otherwise the petitioner seems to have lost interest in pursuing the same.

¶14

In any case, it appears that even on merits claim of the petitioner is not admissible in view of the following stand taken in para 1 and 2 of the preliminary objections of the reply, which is reproduced herein for ready reference:-

¶15

1. “That the petitioner was working as Head Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.700-1250 which was revised to 16002660 w.e.f. 1.1.86. The petitioner was entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs.1600-2660, therefore no legal right of the petitioner has been infringed which entitled him to file the present writ petition.

¶16

2. That the selection grade of 20% was allowed to the post of Head Assistant. But in the Head Office, there were only two post of Head Assistant on 01.01.86 and as such the petitioner was not entitled to the selection grade in view of the Haryana Govt. Instruction dated 15.02.85 (Annexure P-2).”

¶17

VANDANA 2022.04.25 05:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

Be that as it may, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application in case, any cause of action still survives.

¶19

05.04.2022 (ARUN MONGA) vandana JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶20

VANDANA 2022.04.25 05:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Jai Ram v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Ram v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Varsha Vs State of Haryana and Another

K D Vats & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Kartar Singh Chillar Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Rajbir Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Ratan Lal Sharma & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Banarsi Dass etc. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.