← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/18617/2017disposed of

Sushil Kumar v. Union Of India And ORS.

2023-12-20Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH   

CWP No. 18617 of 2017 Date of Decision:20.12.2023 Sushil Kumar ....Petitioner vs.

Union of India and others ....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:

Mr. Rishav Sharma, Advocate for Mr. D.R.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Arvind Moudgil, Senior Panel Counsel and Ms. Deepanshu Gupta, Advocate for the Union of India *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1.

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 09.08.2017 (Annexure P-15) whereby petitioner has been ordered to be absorbed against the post of Clerk in the pay band 5200-20,200+GP 1900/-. 2.

The grievance of the petitioner is that he on account of his disability, vide impugned order, has been ordered to be absorbed against the post of Clerk in the pay band 5200-20,200+GP 1900/- whereas he was already getting grade pay of Rs. 2000/- 3.

In the reply, the respondents have categorically stated that pay of the petitioner would be protected after joining the post. The relevant extracts of the reply read as:- "That in reply to para No. 10 and 11 of the writ petition, it is submitted respectfully that after medically de-categorization, the petitioner was adjudged against the post available as Clerk. PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2023.12.20 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CWP No. 18617 of 2017 -2- 2023:PHHC:163604 No doubt, he was in grade pay 2000 at the time of medically decategorization, his pay was supposed to be protected after the joining the same post. If the petitioner joined the post, his pay will be protected."

4.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that petition may be disposed of in the wake of reply of the respondents.

5.

The petition stands disposed of in the wake of averments of the respondents in the reply to the effect that pay of the petitioner would be protected.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 20.12.2023 paramjit Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2023.12.20 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment