Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Punjab & Ors vs Dharam Pal on 24 April, 2015

State Of Haryana vs Sita Ram on 27 November, 2019

13. Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the question yet again in State of Punjab v. Dharam Pal, (2017) 9 SCC 395. In this case the respondent was appointed as a clerk on 22-5-1970. He was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on 22-9-1980. He was given the officiating charge of the Superintendent Grade II vide order dated 9-12-2004 and thereafter, he was directed to function as Superintendent Grade I vide Government Order dated 26-5-2007. He superannuated on 31-3-2008. He filed Civil Writ Petition challenging the action of the State in not granting him the 14 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 12-01-2020 19:52:23 ::: LPA No.1491 of 2016(O&M) [15] benefit of the pay scale for the posts of Superintendent Grade II and Superintendent Grade I despite his having performed the duties of officiating on those posts. This Court allowed his petition. Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the State. It made a detailed reference to the Punjab Civil Service Rules and the relevant judgments.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 3 - H S Sidhu - Full Document

Nihal Singh Saini And Others vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited ... on 24 September, 2024

After considering and applying the ratio and dictum of the judgments of the Apex Court in Arindam Chattopadhyay vs. State of W.B., (2013) 4 SCC 152 and State of Punjab vs. Dharam Pal, (2017) 9 SCC 395, the Division Bench declined to exercise jurisdiction against challenge to the writ petition having been allowed, whereby the petitioner therein was held entitled to the salary for the higher post for the period he held current duty charge.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Haryana vs Sh. Milap Chand on 28 January, 2026

After considering and applying the ratio and dictum of the judgments of the Apex Court in Arindam Chattopadhyay vs. State of W.B., (2013) 4 SCC 152 and State of Punjab vs. Dharam Pal, (2017) 9 SCC 395, the Division Bench declined to exercise jurisdiction against challenge to the writ petition having been allowed, whereby the petitioner therein was held 7 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 02-02-2026 21:24:08 ::: RSA-1792-1994 8 entitled to the salary for the higher post for the period he held current duty charge.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pt.Desraj Prabhakar vs M.C.Ludhiana And Ors on 4 February, 2026

After considering and applying the ratio and dictum of the judgments of the Apex Court in Arindam Chattopadhyay vs. State of W.B., (2013) 4 SCC 152 and State of Punjab vs. Dharam Pal, (2017) 9 SCC 395, the Division Bench declined to exercise jurisdiction against challenge to the writ petition having been allowed, whereby the petitioner therein was held entitled to the salary for the higher post for the period he held current duty charge.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

D.K. Saldi vs State Of Punjab And Others on 24 March, 2026

After considering and applying the ratio and dictum of the judgments of the Apex Court in Arindam Chattopadhyay vs. State of W.B., (2013) 4 SCC 152 and State of Punjab vs. Dharam Pal, (2017) 9 SCC 395, the Division Bench declined to exercise jurisdiction against challenge to the writ petition having been allowed, whereby the petitioner therein was held entitled to the salary for the higher post for the period he held current duty charge.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sarbjit Singh And Others vs National Scheduled Caste Commission ... on 1 April, 2026

Social Education and Panchayat Officer, his substantive post. After considering and applying the ratio and dictum of the judgments of the Apex Court in Arindam Chattopadhyay vs. State of W.B., (2013) 4 SCC 152 and State of Punjab vs. Dharam Pal, (2017) 9 SCC 395, the Division Bench declined to exercise jurisdiction against challenge to the writ petition having been allowed, whereby the petitioner therein was held entitled to the salary for the higher post for the period he held current duty charge.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ram Dhan Pandir vs Haryana State Agricultural Marketing ... on 6 July, 2022

After considering 11 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 11-07-2022 21:45:51 ::: LPA-1308-2017 (O&M) [12] and applying the ratio and dictum of the judgments of the Apex Court in Arindam Chattopadhyay vs. State of W.B., (2013) 4 SCC 152 and State of Punjab vs. Dharam Pal, (2017) 9 SCC 395, the Division Bench declined to exercise jurisdiction against challenge to the writ petition having been allowed, whereby the petitioner therein was held entitled to the salary for the higher post for the period he held current duty charge.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - V Suri - Full Document

Dr. Devinder Pal Singh Sehgal vs State Of Punjab on 28 February, 2024

5. Pertinently in the instant case, the petitioner being the senior most in his cadre possessed the requisite qualification i.e. M.Sc Hon's and M.Phil in Chemistry and experience for the post of Assistant Director, both in ballistics as well as chemistry. Therefore, together with his own duties, the Department on an administrative basis, assigned him the additional charge of his promotional post of Assistant Director (Ballistics) w.e.f 01.04.2008, it being vacant, whereon he continued to work and thereafter was granted regular promotion as Assistant Director (Chemistry) w.e.f 26.03.2012, whereby he performed duties of two posts albeit without any emoluments for the additional duty. In this regard the resistance offered to non-entitlement was by attempting to canvas, based on the proposal dated 27.02.2008, for granting temporary charge to the petitioner for the 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 05-03-2024 22:31:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:030824 CWP-1909-2019 2024:PHHC:030824 3 post of Assistant Director (Ballistics), as he had previously worked as Scientific Assistant in Ballistics division for many years, in order to streamline the functioning of these divisions and to cut short the time used up in appearances before the Court of law, without financial gain. Be that as it may, in the order dated 01.04.2008, Annexure P-1, by which the additional charge was given to the petitioner, there was no such stipulation regarding non grant of financial benefits. Thus, depriving him of the pay grade scale and pay scale for the duration he served on the higher post, notably, in addition to the duties of the post held by him, can by no stretch be said to be justified, even if there had been any condition mentioned therein, as held in State of Punjab & another vs. Dharam Pal, 2017 (9) SCC 395, wherein the respondent, who was officiating on higher posts and therefore performing the duties of a higher responsibility attached to the same, was held entitled to salary and pay scale of the said post, by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. It was further observed that mere incorporation or undertaking in the order as to non-entitlement to extra financial gain, would not debar an employee from claiming the benefits of the said officiating position.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited vs Sukhpreet Singh And Others on 30 April, 2024

After considering and applying the ratio and dictum of the judgments of the Apex Court in Arindam Chattopadhyay vs. State of W.B., (2013) 4 SCC 152 and State of Punjab vs. Dharam Pal, (2017) 9 SCC 395, the Division Bench declined to exercise jurisdiction against challenge to the writ petition having been allowed, whereby the petitioner therein was held entitled to the salary for the higher post for the period he held current duty charge.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Kamla Kohli vs State Of Pb. And Ors on 2 May, 2025

3. The Division Bench of this Court in State of Haryana and another vs. Pardeep Narayan, LPA-1629-2023, 2023, decided on 06.11.2023, which followed the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. B.K. Dhir, (2017) 9 SCC 337; State of Haryana vs. Sita Ram, LPA-1491-2016, 2016, decided on 27.11.2019, against which SLP stands dismissed on 10.10.2022; State of Punjab and another vs. Dharam Pal, (2017) 9 SCC 395; Raj Kumar Singh vs. Punjab others CWP-128-1993, Mandi Board and others, 1993, decided on 17.07.2014; Subhash Chander vs. others, 2012(1) SCT 603 and Pritam Singh s. State of Haryana and others, 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 03-05-2025 19:12:45 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:057727 CWP-4074-200 2007 (O&M) - 2- Punjab, 2004 (4) SCT 403.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next