Major Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 5938 P&H

CWP-13132-2022                                                           -1-
152
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                  AT CHANDIGARH
                                        ****

CWP-13132-2022 Date of Decision: 02.06.2022

Major Singh and others ..... Petitioners Versus

State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present: Mr. Nitesh Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners.

*****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that in the present

case, the petitioners, who were working with the respondent-Department,

were not granted the increments, even though they had served for a period

of one year prior to their respective dates of retirement, the details of which

have been given in the Table annexed at Annexure P-1 of the present

petition, hence the benefit of said increments have not been taken into

account and the same could not be 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.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, DAG,

Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State and very fairly submits that 1 of 2

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

petitioners have served for the said period of one year prior to their

respective dates of retirement, as claimed by them in the present petition, 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 petitioners have not rendered the

said one year of their respective regular services with the respondent-

Department, as contended by 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.

02.06.2022                                (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
Apurva                                            JUDGE


             1. Whether speaking/reasoned :           Yes
             2. Whether reportable        :           No
                                2 of 2