Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOAR versus MANOHAR LAL

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOAR v. MANOHAR LAL - RSA-4474-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 119 (12 January 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

****

R.S.A. No.4474 of 2005

Date of Decision: 24.1.2006

Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, Panchkula and another

Vs.

Manohar Lal

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
Present:- Shri Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate for the appellants.

****

Respondent- plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he be declared entitled to get his salary in the pay-scale of Rs.2000- 3200/- at basic pay of Rs.2450/- per month. He also claimed that he was entitled to get his salary fixed in the new pay-scale of Rs.5500-10500/- and that the order dated 29.1.2000 vide which step-up of pay was withdrawn be declared null and void. His suit was decreed. Appellants failed in appeal.

It is apparent from the records and has also been noticed by both the Courts below that pay of the respondent was stepped up in the month of October, 1996. Thereafter, vide order under challenge, without issuing any notice to him, the same was withdrawn on 29.1.2000. Courts below have further held that the appellants- defendants were not justified in withholding increments to be granted to the respondent from April, 1997. It has also been found as a matter of fact that in Gradation List, name of the respondent figures at Sr. No.30 whereas names of Fakir Chand Gupta and Kali Ram figures at Sr. No.238 and 264. By noticing that it has been R.S.A. No.4474 of 2005 [2]

said that the respondent was senior to them and is entitled to get salary equal to them.

In view of reasons given by the appellate Court below in para No.10 of judgment dated 22.9.2005, no case is made out for interference in pure findings of fact.

Dismissed.

January 24, 2006 ( JASBIR SINGH )

renu JUDGE


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.