Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SADHU RAM versus INDER KUMAR GUJRAL & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sadhu Ram v. Inder Kumar Gujral & Ors. - COCP-377-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 8650 (16 October 2006)

COCP No.377 of 2006 -: 1 :-

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

COCP No.377 of 2006

Date of decision: October 17, 2006.

Sadhu Ram

...Petitioner(s)

v.

Inder Kumar Gujral & Ors.

...Respondent(s)

Present: Shri Jitender Singh Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri R.D. Sharma, Dy. Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents.

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

In deference to the order dated July 18, 2006, Shri Moola Ram Sharma, District Education Officer, Yamuna Nagar has filed an additional affidavit. As per the averments made in the said affidavit, the arrears of pay to which the petitioner has been held entitled on account of his placement in the Master's pay scale, have been re-calculated and balance amount of Rs.42,974/- has been paid to him on 9.10.2006. An affidavit of Drawing & Disbursing Officer has also been appended to show that the amount has been actually paid to the petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, states that the petitioner is entitled to be paid some more amount.

After hearing Learned Counsel for the parties and having regard to the fact that the respondents have taken a stand that whatever was COCP No.377 of 2006 -: 2 :-

found due has since been paid to the petitioner, this petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to make representation to the competent authority with regard to the release of arrears, if any, and if any such representation is made, the same shall be examined in accordance with law and rules. If upon consideration thereof, the petitioner is found entitled to be paid some more amount, the same shall be released within a period of three months and if, according to the respondents, he is not entitled to any amount, a communication to that effect shall be sent to him.

With these directions, this petition is disposed of.

Rule discharged.

October 17, 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.