Disposed

Diwan Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Apr 2024CWP/17445/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner sought to set aside administrative orders regarding extension, increment, leave, and adverse remarks. Upon counsel's statement regarding the possibility of re-fixing pay based on future representations, the court disposed of the petition without addressing the merits of the challenged orders.

What the court decided

AI extract

Diwan Singh Vs State of Punjab and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

CWP-17445-1998 (O&M)

2024:PHHC:044429

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

204

¶6

CWP-17445-1998 (O&M) Date of Decision : 03.04.2024

DIWAN SINGH

… PETITIONER

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

¶11

... RESPONDENTS

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

¶13

Present: Mr. R.S.Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶14

Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.

¶15

¶16

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

¶17

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of :

¶18

i) Order dated 16.03.1998 whereby he was granted extension of

¶19

one year instead of 03 years;

¶20

ii) Order dated 04.05.1998 (Annexure P-6) whereby annual increment has been granted w.e.f. 27.01.1998 instead of 01.01.1998;

¶21

iii) Order dated 04.05.1998 (Annexure P-7) whereby period w.e.f 20.11.1997 to 26.01.1998 has been treated as earned leave;

¶22

iv) Order dated 16.06.1998 (Annexure P-8) whereby adverse remarks were recorded in his Annual Confidential Report for the year 1997-98.

¶23

Anju Goel 2024.04.03 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CWP-17445-1998 (O&M)

2024:PHHC:044429

As per reply, service tenure of the petitioner was extended till the age of 57 years vide order dated 29.10.1998. The period w.e.f. 20.11.1997 to 26.01.1998 has been treated as on duty period vide order dated 19.11.1998. The representation against adverse remarks in the ACR of 1997-98 has been rejected vide order dated 12.02.1999. The petitioner has not challenged said order.

¶28

Faced with this, Mr. R.S.Chauhan, Advocate submits that respondents may be directed to fix pay of the petitioner as per aforesaid order.

¶29

Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab, submits that if petitioner submits representation with supporting documents in view of changed circumstances, his pay would be re-fixed, in accordance with law.

¶30

In the wake of statement of counsel for the parties, the present petition stands disposed of.

¶31

Pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶32

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE

¶33

03.04.2024

¶34

anju

¶35

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶36

Anju Goel 2024.04.03 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Diwan Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Diwan Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjit Kumar Vs Union of India and Others

Dalip Kaur Vs Union of India and Others

Sudarshan Saini Vs Union of India and Others

Labh Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Karandeep Singh Vs Union of India and Others

Jasbir Singh Vs Union of India and Others