High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/11412/2016disposed of

Jagjit Singh v. State Of Haryana And ORS

2019-09-05Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi2 pages

CWP-11412-2016 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-11412-2016 Date of decision: - 05.09.2019 Jagjit Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: - Mr. B.S. Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Charanjit Singh Bakhshi, Addl. A.G., Haryana. *** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL) In the present writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that he was denied the benefit of increment from the date he was promoted as a Clerk on the ground that for promotion as a Clerk, passing of the typing test was mandatory, as per the notification issued by the Government of Haryana dated 09.09.1988.

Counsel for the respondents states that though, initially, the claim of the petitioner for the grant of annual increment was contested, but later on upon reconsideration, the benefit of increment has been granted to the petitioner from 01.07.2009 till 01.07.2014 and a copy of order dated 16.04.2019 granting the said benefit has been attached as Annexure R-2 with the affidavit dated 30.04.2019. NARESH KUMAR 2019.09.11 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CWP-11412-2016 -2Counsel for the petitioner states that though the relief has already been granted, but the payment of arrears on account of grant of the benefit of grant of increments has been made to the petitioner after undue and unexplained delay, for which he is entitled for interest and hence, a liberty be granted to the petitioner to approach the respondents to claim the interest on the delayed release of the increments. Counsel for the respondents states that in case any representation is filed by the petitioner in this regard, an appropriate decision will be taken on the same in accordance with law within a period of three months of the receipt of the said representation. Counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the above, he does not want to press the present writ petition any further, hence, the same may be disposed of as having not pressed. Ordered accordingly.

( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI ) September 05, 2019 JUDGE naresh.k Whether reasoned/speaking?

Yes Whether reportable?

No NARESH KUMAR 2019.09.11 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh