Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Singh vs Pspcl And Ors on 1 August, 2018
Author: Jaspal Singh
Bench: Jaspal Singh
CWP No. 18674 of 2018 - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 18674 of 2018
DECIDED ON: AUGUST 01, 2018
SURJIT SINGH
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. & OTHERS
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH
Present: Mr. Saravpreet Gurna, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
JASPAL SINGH, J. (ORAL)
By virtue of the instant civil writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought the issuance of a writ particularly in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant him the benefit of 23 year advance promotional increment(s), w.e.f 04.09.2003 as per the principal policy under Finance Circular No.17/1990 dated 23.04.1990 (Annexure P1) and in view of the judgments of this Hon'ble Court, among others in CWP No. 20139 of 2015 (Annexure P6) and CWP No. 7157 of 2018 (Annexure P7), passed in cases of similarly situated persons, with consequential re-fixation of pay and retiral benefits and also to release the same to him along-
1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2018 09:54:32 ::: CWP No. 18674 of 2018 - 2- with arrears as well as interest @18% per annum.
2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has joined respondent-department as Asstt. Lineman on 04.09.1980 and retired from service on 31.10.2014, thus, he became entitled for the release of benefit of 23 years promotional increment but no such benefit was granted to him till date. He further contended that though the similar relief has already been granted to the other employees of the State of Punjab vide judgments passed by this Court in CWP No.20139 of 2015 (Chiman Singh Vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & ors.) decided on 29.02.2016 (P-6) and CWP No. 7157 of 2018 (Mohan LaL Sharma vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors) decided on 22.03.2018 (P-7). The petitioner stood retired on 31.10.2014 on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years. The petitioner being aggrieved of the non-disbursal of the benefits of 23 years promotional increment was constrained to serve legal notice upon the respondents on 04.06.2018 (P-5), but till date no response has been received. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner feels satisfied in case a direction is given to respondent No.2, to decide the aforesaid legal notice (P-5), within a stipulated period.
3. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case but considering the aforesaid aspects as has been unfolded by the learned counsel for the petitioner, instant petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to look into the grievances unfolded by the petitioner in legal notice dated 04.06.2018 (P-5) and to take a conscious decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, particularly in 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2018 09:54:33 ::: CWP No. 18674 of 2018 - 3- the light of the Circular Nos. 17/90, dated 23.04.1990 (P-1), 62/92, dated 16.12.1992 (P-2), 52/99 dated 09.11.1999 (P-3) and 20/2000, dated 28.07.2000 (P-4)) as well as the judgments referred to above in para 2 of this order. In case, competent authorities come to the conclusion that petitioner is entitled to the relief(s) claimed, the same be released to him within a period of next 45 days.
4. However, if petitioner still feels aggrieved by any of the orders passed by the aforesaid authority, he shall be at liberty to have recourse to other remedies available to him under law including to approach this Court.
(JASPAL SINGH) JUDGE AUGUST 01, 2018 sham Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No 3 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 12-08-2018 09:54:33 :::