Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.26 seconds)Joginder Singh vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh . on 11 November, 2014
8. The action of the respondents in not releasing his complete
salary for the period of suspension and denying his annual increment
on the ground that he remained suspended during the period is not
tenable in law. The applicant is armed with a judicial decision in his
favour, which paradoxically has been followed by the respondents
7 OA-4461/2017
in the departmental proceedings themselves and which has
attained finality not having been challenged by the respondents in
any Court of Law. The judgment in the case of Joginder Singh
(supra) deals with the same issue and the rationale applied therein is
squarely applicable to the present case as well. The O.A. is
accordingly allowed. Consequently, orders dated 16.1.2017 and
22.09.2017 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed
to release the salary along with allowance for the suspension period
w.e.f. 09.08.2016 to 31.03.2017 along with annual increment
applicable to the applicant, as per law. No costs.
Union Of India vs Jagdamba Singh on 2 July, 2015
Similarly, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of UOI Vs.
Jagdamba Singh [WP(C)-6152/2015] on 02.07.2015 has held that:-
Surinder Kumar Gupta vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & ... on 3 March, 2009
5 OA-4461/2017
5.1 Learned counsel also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High
Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Mahesh Kumar Gupta
Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Nigam Ltd., 2016(6)SLR 277.
1