CWP-18693-2020

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

(168)

CM-8772-CWP-2022 in/and

CWP-18693-2020

Date of Decision: 30.05.2022

Manjit Kaur

..... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Punjab and another

..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present:

Ms. Gitanjali Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

***

Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)

CM-8772-CWP-2022

Present application has been filed for preponing the date of

hearing of the main petition i.e. CWP No. 18693 of 2020, which stands

adjourned to 06.07.2022.

Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the question of

law as raised in the present petition has also been raised in the writ

petitions, which are listed today and, therefore, the present petition be also

heard and decided along with the said writ petitions.

Notice of the application to the counsel opposite.

Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, learned Deputy Advocate General,

Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-

State and raises no objection for the grant of prayer as raised in the present

application.

KANCHAN

2022.06.02 18:53

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CWP-18693-2020

-2-

Keeping in view the above, application is allowed and the

hearing of the main petition i.e. CWP No. 18693 of 2020 is preponed from

06.07.2022 to today.

CWP No. 18693-2020

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in the present

case, the petitioner, who was working as a Superintendent Grade-I with the

respondent-Department, was not granted an increment even though he had

served for a period of one year prior to the retirement, i.e. w.e.f. 01.06.2019

to 31.05.2020, hence the benefit of said increment has not been taken into

account and the same could not be added in pay of the petitioner for

computing his pensionary benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the question of law as raised in the present petition has already

been decided by this Court while passing judgment in CWP-32598-2019,

titled as “Gurdev Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another”,

decided on 16.03.2022.

Learned State counsel very fairly submits that though the

question of law, as raised in the present petition, has already been decided

by this Court in Gurdev Singh's case (supra), but whether the petitioner has

served for a period of one year, i.e. w.e.f. 01.06.2019 to 31.05.2020, or not

with the respondent-Department is a factual aspect which cannot be replied

to at this stage, and therefore, the present petition be disposed in terms of

the order passed by this Court in Gurdev Singh's case (supra), but with a

liberty to the respondents that if the petitioner has not rendered one year

regular service with the respondent-Department, as contended by learned

counsel for the petitioner, an appropriate order will be passed by the

authorities concerned.

KANCHAN

2022.06.02 18:53

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CWP-18693-2020

-3-

Learned counsel for the petitioner raises no objection for grant

of the said liberty to the respondents.

Keeping in view the above, the present petition is disposed of

in terms of the order passed in Gurdev Singh's case (supra) with liberty to

the respondents that in case it is found that the petitioner has not worked for

a period of one year with the respondent-Department, as being claimed in

the present petition, an appropriate order on the said aspect be passed by the

authorities concerned, within a period of eight weeks of passing of this

order, otherwise the benefit for which the petitioner is entitled for, be

released in his favour.

May 30, 2022

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)

kanchan

JUDGE

1. Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No

2. Whether reportable

:

Yes/No

KANCHAN

2022.06.02 18:53

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document