Kulwant Singh vs Director Parivar Kalyan Bhawan
2022 Latest Caselaw 5864 P&H

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.144                                        CWP No.12584 of 2022
                                                  Date of Decision: 01.06.2022

Kulwant Singh                                                      .... Petitioner

                                         Versus

Director Privar Kalyan Bhawan,
Chandigarh and others                                            ... Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

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

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL)

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in the present

case, the petitioner, who was working as Cook with Civil Surgeon, Sangrur,

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. 01.01.2020 to 31.12.2020, 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.

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

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

1 of 2

period of one year, i.e. w.e.f. 01.01.2020 to 31.12.2020, 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 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 petitioner has not rendered one year regular

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

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

authorities concerned.

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.

                                          (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
                                                  JUDGE
01.06.2022
Maninder

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




                                2 of 2