Tek Chand And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 5668 P&H

                                                    Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060963-DB




114                                                  2023:PHHC:060963-DB


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                              LPA-486-2023 (O&M)
                                              Date of decision: 28.04.2023

Tek Chand and others
                                                             ......Appellants.
                          vs.

State of Haryana and another
                                                             ......Respondents.


CORAM: - HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY


Present: -   Mr. P.L. Verma, Advocate, for the appellants.


M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.

CM-1325-LPA-2023 and CM-1326-LPA-2023

These applications are filed by the appellants seeking

condonation of delay of 56 days in filing the appeal and further 50 days

delay in re-filing the appeal.

Notice of the applications.

Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on

behalf of the State-respondents and states that she has no objection if the

said delay of 56 days in filing and 50 days in re-filing the appeal is

condoned.

Having regard to the reasons assigned in the applications and

having regard to the fact that State counsel for the respondents has no

objection if these applications are allowed, these applications (CM-1325-

LPA-2023 and CM-1326-LPA-2023) are allowed and the delay of 56 days

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060963-DB

114 LPA-486-2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:060963-DB

in filing and 50 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

CM-1327-LPA-2023

This is an application seeking impleadment of the legal

representative of appellant No. 5-Vinod Kumar.

Having regard to the reasons assigned in the application,

application is allowed and the legal representative of the deceased-

Vinod Kumar/appellant No. 5 is permitted to file the appeal.

LPA-486-2023

Notice of motion.

Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on

behalf of the State-respondents.

This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against judgment

dt.31.10.2022 of the learned Single Judge in CWP-456-2020 to the

extent the learned Single Judge had not granted relief to the appellants.

He had rejected their claim for fixation of pensionary

benefits on the ground that they had been given current duty charge of

the Higher Post of Superintendent, though they were holding the

substantive rank of Deputy Superintendent on the basis of last pay

drawn by them while officiating in the said higher position.

The learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment, has

taken the view rightly that for fixation of pension, the substantive rank

held by the employees had to be seen and not the officiating rank.

Admittedly, the substantive rank of the petitioners would

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060963-DB

114 LPA-486-2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:060963-DB

only be that of Deputy Superintendent and merely because they were

given current duty charge of the higher post of Superintendent, they

cannot claim to have been regularly promoted to the said position.

So, notwithstanding the period they have discharged the duties of the

office of Superintendent as current duty charge, they cannot claim any

pensionary benefits on the said basis.

So, we do not find any merit in the appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

                                               (M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO)
                                                        JUDGE



                                                   (SANJIV BERRY)
28.04.2023                                             JUDGE
kanika

whether speaking/non speaking        yes/no
whether reportable/non reportable    yes/no

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060963-DB

3 of 3