Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harinder Singh vs The Punjab State Electricity Board And ... on 1 October, 2013
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
C.W.P. No.16282 of 1998 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No.16282 of 1998 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION : 1.10.2013
Harinder Singh PETITIONER
VERSUS
The Punjab State Electricity Board and another RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:- Shri R.D.Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
The petitioner impugns the order Annexure P-4 by which he was paid the increments and also the interest thereon, but from a date which is to the dis-satisfaction of the petitioner.
The aforesaid order was passed ostensibly pursuant to the order passed by this Court in C.W.P. No.2912 of 1997 wherein this Court had directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of passing of the order and also to grant him interest in case he is held entitled to some benefits.
The impugned order Annexure P-4 would reveal that a charge-sheet was contemplated or possibly issued to the petitioner for his absence from duty for Dass Ghanshyam 2013.10.14 12:51 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh C.W.P. No.16282 of 1998 -2- the period 18.7.1981 to 29.7.1983. The petitioner attributes this period of absence to the respondents, who did not permit him to join the duty.
However, the petition is totally silent as to what happened to the show cause notice and the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner. With the efflux of time, these proceedings might have extinguished, but the Court in the absence of categoric averments to this effect is not able to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner in the right perspective. If the proceedings were pending, the respondents might have had a justified cause to withhold the increments and if that was justified, then possibly, the grant of interest from a later date would also be justified. But finding no such material on record, I am of the opinion that the grievance of the petitioner cannot be appreciated.
Learned counsel for the petitioner then contends that his claim should be accepted, as it is evident that these respondents have not said anything in the reply. The Court is not enamoured of such an argument. It was the duty of the petitioner or atleast the counsel who drafted the petition, to be conscious of the fact that the fact of issuance of charge-sheet or the show cause notice has been mentioned in the impugned order and therefore, to offset that observation, a specific averment ought to have been made as to the fate of the proceedings. The petitioner having failed to do so has deprived the Court of a chance to appreciate the grievance.
The petition is therefore, dismissed however with a direction that the respondents may look into the matter afresh and see the fate of proceedings indicated in the impugned order and its impact on the claim of the petitioner. A speaking order be passed after hearing the petitioner.
(MAHESH GROVER)
October 1, 2013 JUDGE
GD
WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO
Dass Ghanshyam
2013.10.14 12:51
I am the author of this
document
high court chandigarh
C.W.P. No.16282 of 1998 -3-
Dass Ghanshyam
2013.10.14 12:51
I am the author of this
document
high court chandigarh