Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAGDEEP SINGH & ORS versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jagdeep Singh & Ors v. State of Haryana & Ors - RA-241-2001 [2006] RD-P&H 6765 (8 September 2006)

RA 241 of 2001 in - 1-

CWP No. 15532 of 1994

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RA 241 of 2001

in CWP No. 15532 of 1994

DATE OF DECISION : 15.9.2006.

Jagdeep Singh and others

......PETITIONERS

VERSUS

State of Haryana and others

APPLICANT-RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI

PRESENT: M.RK Malik, Advocate for the non applicant- petitioners.

Mr.Harish Rathee,Sr.DAG, Haryana for applicant- respondents.

M.M.KUMAR,J.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length. In our view order dated 13.8.1999 passed by this court, which is the subject matter of review application, proceeds on two sound principles laid down by the Division Bench of this court in the case of K.C.Hooda vs. State of Haryana (CWP No. 1380 of 1998 decided on 2.12.1998). The learned State counsel in the penultimate para had conceded that the matter in the instant petition was covered by the judgment in K.C.Hooda's case (supra) and accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of in terms of that judgment. The principles on which the judgment apparently proceeds are - that the pay scale of feeder post cannot be lower than the promotional post. It is the admitted position that RA 241 of 2001 in - 2-

CWP No. 15532 of 1994

the post of Road Inspector is a feeder post for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer in the applicant-respondent Department. The pay scale of Road Inspector was Rs.1400-2600, whereas, the pay Scale of Junior Engineer was Rs.1400-2300. The second principle followed in K.C.Hooda,s case (supra) was that - the anomaly in the pay scale has to be removed from the date of its revision and not from a subsequent date when the anomaly in fact has been removed. We are of the view that the instant case is not a case of revision of pay scale but it is a case of removal of anomaly on account of the fact that the feeder post carried more pay scale than that of the promotional post. The so called concession given by the learned State counsel in the instant judgment under review, in our opinion, does not suffer from any legal infirmity and the order does not call for any review.

The aforementioned principles have been correctly applied in the order dated 13.8.1999 and ,therefore, even on merits the result shall not be different than the one recorded in the order. Therefore, there is no merit in the review application and the same is dismissed.

( M.M.KUMAR )

JUDGE

September 15 ,2006 ( M.M.S.BEDI )

TSM 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.