Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DEV RAJ ARYA & versus SHRI RAJ KUMAR, IAS & ANR.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dev Raj Arya & v. Shri Raj Kumar, IAS & Anr. - COCP-952-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 4813 (26 July 2006)

COCP No.952 of 2003 -: 1 :-

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

*****

COCP No.952 of 2003

Date of decision: August 01, 2006.

Dev Raj Arya & Ors.

...Petitioner(s)

v.

Shri Raj Kumar, IAS & Anr.

...Respondent(s)

Present: Mrs. Daya Chaudhary Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Ravi Dutt Sharma, Dy. Advocate General, Haryana Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

The petitioners, along with some of their colleagues, filed CWP No.15203 of 1995, which was allowed by this Court 12.2.2001 in the same terms as in CWP No.7753 of 1997 (Dina Nath v. State of Haryana & Ors.).

CWP No.7753 of 1997, on the other hand, was allowed on 10.11.1998 with a direction to the respondents to place the Laboratory Technicians in a pay scale higher than that of Multi-Purpose Health Supervisors to whom the revised pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 was granted in place of the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.480-760 with effect from 1.1.1986.

Alleging non-compliance, some of the petitioners also filed COCP No.1142 of 2001 which was disposed of by this Court as having COCP No.952 of 2003 -: 2 :-

become infructuous on 2.11.2001 (Annexure R-1).

The petitioners, however, felt aggrieved that despite a stand taken before this court in the stated contempt petition, they have not been granted the admissible pay scale and as such have filed this second petition.

In response to the show cause notice, an affidavit has been filed by Dr. B.S. Dahiya, Director General, Health Service, Haryana and along with the said affidavit, documents Annexures R-2 to R-5 have been appended in order to show that various payments were made to the petitioners in terms of the order passed in CWP No.15203 of 1995 (Manohar Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.).

Though the petitioners have filed a rejoinder to the above said reply, however, from the pleadings, it is not discernible as to how and in which pay scale the petitioners' pay was fixed in terms of the order passed in Dina Nath's case (supra). Similarly, from the documents Annexures R-2 to R-5, it is difficult to find out as to how the arrears were calculated and paid to the petitioners.

Consequently, this contempt petition is disposed of with a direction to the Director General, Health Services, Haryana and/or the Civil Surgeons concerned to communicate speaking orders to the petitioners within a period of two months from today, in which it shall be explained as to how the direction issued by this court in Dina Nath's case were implemented and consequently they were placed in higher pay scale. The details as to how the arrears paid to them were calculated, shall also be furnished by the same order.

The petitioners, if still aggrieved of the manner in which the respondents have implemented the directions issued by this court, are COCP No.952 of 2003 -: 3 :-

granted liberty to impugn those orders, if so advised.

Disposed of.

Rule discharged.

August 01, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]

kadyan 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.