Back
SURESHWAR THAKUR, SUDEEPTI SHARMA
B. S. Danewalia (Since Deceased) through LRs. – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal cast under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, 1894, is preferred against the judgment dated 25.04.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP-4756-1999, wherebys the claim of the appellant for re-fixation of his pay and pension to the post of Director General of Police, Punjab, which was created in place of the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, by the Government of India, rather was rejected.
Factual Background
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell, are that, the appellant was serving as the Inspector General of Police, Punjab w.e.f 20.07.1977. At that time, there was only one post of Inspector General of Police and he was then the Head of the Police force in the State of Punjab. His pay scale was Rs.2500-2750 with special pay of Rs.250/- per month. On 20.02.1980, the Akali Government in the State of Punjab was dismissed and the appellant was sought to be transferred from the post of Inspector General of Police to a non-cadre post. Therefore, to register his protest, the petitioner proceeded on leave in preparation to his retirement, and took premature retirement w.e.f 05.06.1980. At
The court established that benefits of an upgraded post should be granted to former holders of that post, regardless of premature retirement, ensuring entitlement to pensionary benefits.
The downgraded pay scale of the Inspector under ROP (2nd Amendment) 2006 was not applicable to the petitioner, and the objection raised by the respondent No. 6 to the claims made by the petitioner fo....
where the appointment is temporary or irregular in any manner, reversion should be carried out within a reasonable period and, therefore, reversion of the appellant therein from the post of District ....
The court established that a military promotion cannot be deemed honorary without substantial evidence, and ex-servicemen are entitled to promotions based on merit and prior rank.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a government servant to notional pay fixation upon exoneration from disciplinary proceedings, as per the relevant government ord....
The petitioners were entitled to the benefit of FR 22-B, and the respondent authorities were directed to re-fix the scale of pay of the petitioners by giving them the benefit of FR 22-B.
The denial of pay scale benefits to petitioners after 18 years of service is unjustified; they are entitled to the pay scale of Sub-Inspector as per M.T. Cadre.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
