Disposed

Punam v. State of Haryana and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Jan 2024CWP/994/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a PGT Mathematics appointee, sought parity in notional pay fixation and seniority with juniors appointed from 06.03.2019. Grievance pending as representation. Court disposed the petition directing the Additional Chief Secretary, School Education Department, Haryana to decide the representation by speaking order within three months, with ₹25,000 costs for default.

What the court decided

AI extract

Punam Vs State of Haryana and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

2024:PHHC:005208

CWP-994-2024

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

126 CWP-994-2024 Date of Decision: 16.01.2024

Punam

…Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana and another …Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

¶11

Present:Mr. Rohit Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner

¶12

Ms. Tanushree Gupta, DAG, Haryana

¶13

¶14

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral)

¶15

This petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the action of the respondent-Commission not to consider the petitioner for benefit of notional pay fixation and seniority granted to newly appointed PGT mathematics with effect from 06.03.2019, i.e., the date when her juniors have been appointed to the post of PGT Mathematics whereas similarly placed other candidates have been granted the said benefit vide orders dated 28.02.2022 and 02.03.2022, Annexures P-4 & P-5 respectively. Further, a direction has been sought to the respondent Department to decide the representation, Annexure P-7, of the petitioner.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance raised herein is pending for appropriate decision before the respondents. At this

¶17

PAYAL 2024.01.18 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

2024:PHHC:005208

CWP-994-2024

-2-

stage, the petitioner will be satisfied in case respondent No.1 is directed to decide the pending representation, Annexure P-7, in a specified period.

¶22

Notice of motion.

¶23

Ms. Tanushree Gupta, DAG, Haryana, appearing on advance notice, submits that the pending representation shall be decided by respondent No.1 expeditiously.

¶24

In view thereof, without going into merits of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1/Additional Chief Secretary, School Education Department, Haryana, to consider and decide the pending representation, Annexure P-7, by passing a speaking order in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

¶25

In case the order is not passed within the stipulated period, the officer concerned shall pay costs of ₹25,000 to the petitioner.

¶26

(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE 16.01.2024 Payal Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶27

PAYAL 2024.01.18 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Punam v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Punam v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Seema Rani Alias Seema Devi and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Neha Rani Vs State of Haryana and Others

Anil Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Tara Chand and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Usha Devi and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Shiv Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Another