Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS versus JAGMOHAN SINGH WALIA

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


STATE OF PUNJAB & Ors v. JAGMOHAN SINGH WALIA - RSA-1229-2005 [2005] RD-P&H 22 (25 May 2005)

R.S.A.No.1229 of 2005

State of Punjab and others v. Jagmohan Singh Walia Present:- Ms.Neelofar A.Parveen, A.A.G.Punjab, for the State-appellant.

Mr.S.S.Bhinder, Advocate,

for the respondent.

-.-

Ashutosh Mohunta, J.

Whether or not the respondent is entitled to the grant of two proficiency step up increments after completion of 8 and 18 years of service with effect from 1.1.1986 and he has a right to revise his option exercised earlier?

is the only question that arises for consideration before this Court in this appeal.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Admittedly, the plaintiff-respondent was placed in the pay scale of Rs.1800 3200 when he had exercised the option with effect from 1.6.1987. The proficiency step-up increments were granted vide order No.13027/6NGE-I/93 dated 26.10.1993 in the revised pay-scale of Rs.2200-

3900. Though it has been contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State-appellant that as per Government notification No.10/7/88/FPI/8299 DATED 9.9.1988 an option once exercised by the employees under Rule (6)(i) is final and they cannot revise the option, yet I do not agree with the contention raised by him. At the time when the plaintiff R.S.A.No.1229 of 2005

had exercised the option with effect from 1.6.1987 he was drawing the pay- scale of Rs.1800-3200. With the revision of the pay-scale to 2200-3900 retrospectively with effect from 1.1.1986 and the fact that the proficiency step-up increments were to be given in the revised pay scale, the priorities for exercising the option had changed. Thus, the plaintiff-respondent cannot be debarred from exercising the option in view of the changed priorities therefor. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Randhir Kaur and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2003(1) RSJ 178, that "once through a subsequent order passed by the Government itself or on the basis of a Court judgment, if the pay scale of a particular individual is revised, the earlier option which might have been given" by him "would lose its significance." It has further been held by their Lordships that "such a person would be entitled to give a fresh option by which he could get the maximum advantage." The law laid down by the said Division Bench is squarely applicable to the facts appearing in the present case. I do not find any infirmity in the well-reasoned judgment and decree dated 6.12.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda, and I uphold the same.

Consequently, there is not merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

July 29, 2005. ( Ashutosh Mohunta )

KKP Judge

R.S.A.No.1229 of 2005


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.