Bhavishan Kumar And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 5859 P&H

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.118                                      CWP No.12432 of 2022
                                                Date of Decision: 01.06.2022


Bhavishan Kumar and another                                     .... Petitioners
                                          Versus

The State of Punjab and others                                 ... Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present:     Ms. Gitanjali Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioners.
                  ***

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL)

Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that in the present

case, petitioner No.1 was working as Science Master with Govt. Senior

Secondary School, Issewal, District Ludhiana and petitioner No.2 was

working as S.S.Master with Govt. Senior Secondary School, Mauran, Tehsil

Sunam, District Sangrur and they were not granted annual increment even

though they had served for a period of one year prior to the retirement, i.e.

w.e.f. 01.03.2021 to 28.02.2022 in case of petitioner No.1 and w.e.f.

01.07.2004 to 30.06.2005 in case of petitioner No.2, hence the benefit of

said increment has not been given and the same was not added in pay of the

petitioners for computing their pensionary benefits. Learned counsel for the

petitioners 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.

Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab,

keeping in view the advance service of the copy of petition, accepts notice

on behalf of the respondents and submits that though the question of law, as 1 of 2

raised in the present petition, has already been decided by this Court in

Gurdev Singh's case (supra), but whether petitioners No.1 and 2 have

served for a period of one year, i.e. from 01.03.2021 to 28.02.2022 and

w.e.f. 01.07.2004 to 30.06.2005 respectively, 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 of 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 petitioners have not rendered one year regular service

with the respondent-Department, as contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioners, an appropriate order will be passed by the authorities concerned.

Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners have 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 petitioners are entitled for, be

released in their favour.

                                          (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
                                                 JUDGE
01.06.2022
Maninder

             Whether speaking/reasoned         :      Yes/No
             Whether reportable                :      Yes/No



                                2 of 2