Allowed

Ram Kanwar Sharma v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Jan 2023CWP/27193/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition for certiorari to quash an administrative order rejecting the petitioner's claim for a pension pay scale. The Court held that based on a prior precedent, denying the benefit to similarly situated employees was no longer supported in law.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's claim for pay scale was quashed.

Ram Kanwar Sharma Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

230

¶3

C.W.P. No. 27193 of 2019 Date of decision: 16.01.2023

¶4

RAM KANWAR SHARMA

¶5

......petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

¶8

.......Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

¶10

Present: None for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr.Tapan Kumar, DAG, Haryana.

¶12

Mr.Ravi Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶13

¶14

Raj Mohan Singh, J.

¶15

The petitioner has filed this petition for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 11.04.2018, whereby the claim of the petitioner seeking pay scale of Rs.7500-12,000/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not party in similar writ petition bearing CWP No.18162 of 2001, which was disposed of by the High Court vide order dated 18.02.2002.

¶16

As per the stand taken in the written statement filed by the respondents No.1 to 4 and separate reply by the respondent no.2, the case of the petitioner has been duly considered and pay scale of Rs.7500-250-12000/- has been

¶17

ANITA DEVI 2023.01.17 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and autenticity of this jugejumenmt\order

¶18

C.W.P. No. 27193 of 2019

¶19

-2-

¶20

granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1996, vide order dated 25.03.2015. The reply further shows that the revised pension case of the petitioner has been returned by the office on 15.11.2017 with some remarks. Firstly that copy of CWP No. 18162 of 2001 has not been attached with the case; secondly, Sr.No. of the petitioner in the writ petition has not been intimated and thirdly, whether the arrear of payment has been paid or not has also not been intimated.

¶21

The cumulative effect of the stand taken by the respondents coupled with law laid down in Satbir Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2002 (2) SCT, 354 , the question is no more res integra. Once, the question of law is decided then all the similarly situated employees are to be granted the benefit without forcing them to approach this Court.

¶22

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to accept this writ petition. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Normal consequences to follow.

¶23

16.01.2023

¶24

(RAJ MOHAN SINGH) JUDGE

¶25

anita

¶26

whether speaking/non speaking whether reportable/non reportable

¶27

yes/no yes/no

¶28

ANITA DEVI 2023.01.17 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and autenticity of this jugejumenmt\order

Ram Kanwar Sharma v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kanwar Sharma v. State of Haryana and Ors.

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

Harbhajan Singh Vs Regional Transport Authority

Saroj Sharma Vs State of Punjab and Others

Naveen and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Baljeet Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Satwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rajpal Singh Vs State of Haryana and Another