Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Shami Gupta vs Punjab State Power Corp Ltd And Ors on 24 April, 2018

Author: Jitendra Chauhan

Bench: Jitendra Chauhan

CWP-9942-2018                                                     -1-

112-B
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH

                                 CWP-9942-2018
                                 Date of decision-24.04.2018

Shami Gupta                                          Petitioner

                                        Vs.

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others
                                            ...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

Present:     Mr. P.K.Goklaney, Advocate for the petitioner.


             ***

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.

This writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the issuance of a writ, in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the benefit of promotional increment to the petitioner after completion of his 23 years of regular service.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that at this stage he would be satisfied, if a direction is issued to respondent No.1-Chairman- cum-Managing Director, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala to consider and decide the legal notice dated 06.02.2018 (Annexure P-12).

Heard.

In view of the above, without adverting to the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1- Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 06-05-2018 18:19:43 ::: CWP-9942-2018 -2- The Mall, Patiala to consider and decide the legal notice dated 06.02.2018 (Annexure P-12) within six weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of the order. In case, on consideration, the competent authority reaches to the conclusion that the benefit claimed by the petitioner is admissible to her, in such eventuality, the consequential relief be allowed to her, within a period of six weeks thereafter. However, in case the competent authority feels that the relief claimed by the petitioner is not admissible to her or made out, in that case, a speaking order be passed in the matter.




                                           (JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
                                                JUDGE
24.04.2018
vanita
             Whether speaking/reasoned :               Yes      No
             Whether Reportable :                      Yes      No




                                2 of 2
             ::: Downloaded on - 06-05-2018 18:19:44 :::