Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 23.03.2020 (Annexure P-6), whereby the claim of the petitioners for rectification of anomaly in the pay scale of Drivers vis-a-vis Clerks/Patwaris and for grant of pay band of Rs.10,300-34,800/- + Grade Pay Rs.3,200/- has been rejected. Further, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to grant the petitioners the pay band of Rs.10,300-34,800/- + Grade Pay Rs.3,200/- at par with Clerks/Patwaris w.e.f. 01.12.2011 along with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary/pension with interest @ 12% per annum.
2. Brief facts, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioners are retired employees of the respondent-department, who served on the post of Driver during their service tenure. Since 1986, the post of Driver was always placed in a higher pay scale than posts such as Clerks, Patwaris, Constables and Gram Sewaks. However, in the mid-term pay revision implemented w.e.f. 01.12.2011 (Annexures P-2 & P-3), the State Governmen
Claims for promotional increments must be raised within a reasonable time, particularly before retirement; delay can bar relief.
Claims for additional increments post-retirement are barred by delay and laches, emphasizing the need for timely action by employees.
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
