citedby: 63524948

The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Dr.P.Kirubakaran on 3 October, 2019

http://www.judis.nic.in 51/54 WA No.3378 of 2019 and CMP No.21655 of 2019 ii. the only permissible distinction shall be that the Judicial Officers who acquire LL.M. Degree before joining the service shall be entitled to additional increments from the date of joining the service, while those who have acquired/acquire the same after joining the service shall be entitled to these increments from the date of acquisition of the higher qualification of LL.M.; iii. the three increments granted to the Judicial Officers on acquisition of LL.M. Degree shall be treated as 'additional increments' in the same manner as has been directed by this Court in Priya Sood's case (Punjab matter);

Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Ajmer Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 26 March, 2013

Even she has denied her statement alleged to have been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by PW-9 Shri Baljinder Singh, JMIC, Anandpur Sahib. CRM No. 3733 of 2013 in/and CRM-A No. 23-MA of 2013 -4- Rather she has simply stated that her signatures were obtained thereon under pressure of the police. Though this statement Ex.PL has been proved by PW-9 Shri Baljinder Singh, JMIC, Anandpur Sahib, but it has got no evidentiary value at all for proving the offence alleged to be committed by the accused. It has been held in the authorities "Priya v. State of Punjab (supras), "George v. State of Kerala (supra) and "Bhup Singh v. State of Haryana (supra) that the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can only be used for the purpose of contradicting or corroborating the statement of the victim recorded in the Court. It has been further held that this statement of the victim was never subjected to cross examination by the accused and thus, it has no much evidentiary value. It has been further held that this statement has got no value, especially when the victim has denied all the allegations levelled by the prosecution against the accused in her statement recorded in the Court. So, the conviction of accused cannot be based solely on the basis of statement Ex.PL of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by PW-9 Shri Baljinder Singh, JMIC, Anandpur Sahib."

Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Anil Kumar & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 16 October, 2015

4. This issue arose directly in CWP No.6954 of 2009 decided on January 24, 2011 in Priya Sood vs. State of Punjab and others. The petitioner therein was a member of the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) and was serving as Chief Judicial Magistrate in the State of Punjab. The Judicial Officer approached this Court against the action of the State Government in restricting the grant of three increments to mean "not additional or special but only as advance" increments. The learned Single Judge of this Court relied on the Shetty Commission report where both the phrases "additional" and "advance" were used in para.8.46 of the MANJU 2015.10.19 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.18514, 19064 and 22577 of 2012 CWP No.10661, 10749, 619 and 678 of 2013 COCP No.1926 of 2012 CWP No.21461 of 2014 and CWP No.997 of 2015 -6- recommendations as inter-changeable and since the solitary object of these recommendations was to grant extra benefits to those officers who joined Judicial services with higher qualification the word advance shall connote the same meaning as the word additional is understood in general parlance. The learned Single Judge observed that the Commission, under no circumstance, can be said to have recommended a short term gain only by construing the word "advance" as premature for such a restrictive meaning which would lead to discriminatory results and would unwittingly bring equality amongst unequals. This would violate the equality clause in Article 14 of the Constitution.

Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 13 - R N Raina - Full Document

Amit Kumar Chakraborty vs Haryana Power Generation Corporation ... on 1 February, 2024

11. Similar issue arose before this Court in Priya Sood v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) SCT 319, wherein the judicial officer was granted three advance increments in lieu of her qualification of LL.M., however, the same were neither treated as 'additional' nor 11 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 17-02-2024 02:13:59 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014268 12 CWP-2262 of 2018 2024:PHHC:014268 'special' and while considering the provisions of Rules 4.7, 4.9 and 4.10 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules and recommendations made by Justice Shetty Pay Commission, it was held that advance increments granted to the judicial officer possessing higher qualifications cannot be treated as a temporary measure only to be adjusted against their future increments to which they are otherwise entitled to as a matter of right and it was held that the advance increments granted on account of acquiring higher qualifications to be treated over and above the annual increments admissible to them. Against the said judgment, matter went in appeal and the said judgment was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Punjab and Haryana High Court v. Priya Sood and others, 2011(3) SCT 334, wherein it was held as under:

Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

**** vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 2 August, 2012

iii. the three increments granted to the Judicial Officers on acquisition of LL.M. Degree shall be treated as 'additional increments' in the same manner as has been directed by this Court in Priya Sood's case (Punjab matter);

Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - S Kant - Full Document

Sube Singh & Ors vs The State Of Haryana & Ors on 15 November, 2018

Present writ petition for issuance of directions to the respondents for granting the benefits of two advance increments to the petitioners by merging it in their pay without effecting future annual increment in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in Priya Sood v. State of Punjab and Others 2011(3) S.C.T. 319 and to re-fix their pay and pension with all consequential benefits.

Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - S Dhawan - Full Document

Baldev Kumar Thakral And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 November, 2018

In view of above, present writ petition stands disposed of with the directions to the respondents to look into legal notice dated 25.07.2018 (Annexure P9) and take the required decision thereon in the light of judgment rendered by this Court in Priya Sood's case (supra), expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.