Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

YOGESH SHARMA & ORS. versus MS. SAROJNI GAUTAM SHARMA & ANR.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Yogesh Sharma & Ors. v. Ms. Sarojni Gautam Sharma & Anr. - COCP-1761-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 6253 (31 August 2006)

COCP No. 1761 of 2003 -: 1 :-

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

COCP No. 1761 of 2003

Date of decision: August 31, 2006.

Yogesh Sharma & Ors.

...Petitioner(s)

v.

Ms. Sarojni Gautam Sharma & Anr.

...Respondent(s)

Present: Shri R.K. Chopra, Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Ajnish Raj Takkar, Advocate for the respondents.

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

The services of the petitioners, who were working as Tubewell Drivers, Sewermen, Fitters, etc., were regularized by the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar in terms of government instructions issued in October, 2001. Those orders, however, were later on withdrawn and their services were de-regularized. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed CWP No.19252 of 2001 wherein, as an interim measure, operation of the orders de-regularizing the petitioners' services was stayed. Finally, the said writ petition was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 28.8.2003 and after quashing the order vide which the petitioners' services were de- regularized, the matter was remitted to the Corporation to reconsider the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services.

The afore-mentioned order passed by this Court was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the SLP was dismissed vide COCP No. 1761 of 2003 -: 2 :-

order dated 29.11.2004 (Annexure P-9).

It appears that services of the petitioners have thereafter been regularized by the Municipal Corporation. However, their claim of consequential benefits for the interregnum period has not been considered or decided.

Learned counsel representing the authorities of the respondent- Corporation submits that as per the written instructions received by him, the services of the petitioners have been regularized on different posts and they are drawing salary in regular pay scale with effect from 1.11.2005.

However, Shri Chopra, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, contends that since no fresh orders of regularizing their services have been passed or conveyed, the petitioners are deemed to be continuing on regular basis pursuant to the original order of regularization of their services, dated 12.10.2001.

After hearing Learned Counsel for the parties, it appears expedient and desirable that the respondents should take a decision in respect of the consequential benefits, if any, to which the petitioners are found entitled for the interregnum period.

Consequently, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners' claim regarding consequential benefits for the interregnum period and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three months.

Disposed of.

Rule discharged.

August 31, 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.