High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/25029/2018disposed of

Joginder Singh v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Others

2018-09-28Mr. Justice Rameshwar Singh Malik2 pages

CWP No.25029 OF 2018 --1--

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.25029 OF 2018 DECIDED ON: SEPTEMBER 28, 2018 JOGINDER SINGH .....PETITIONER

VERSUS

PUNJAB STATE POWER CORP. LTD.

.....RESPONDENTS AND ORS.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH

Present:

Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Advocate, for the petitioner.

***** JASPAL SINGH, J.

Through instant petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to revise the pensionary benefits i.e. pension, commuted pension, gratuity after revising his pay scale by granting 3 increments as already granted to diploma holder (JEs) on the principle of equal pay for equal work and in terms of decision dated 13.11.2017 given by this Court in RSA No.4355 of 2014, titled as PSEB v. Gurdial Singh (P-10) upholding the judgment of appellate court dated 12.03.2014 (P-11) along with consequential arrears and grant 23 years promotional increment in view of circular dated 23.04.1990 and in view of judgment dated 14.12.2015 passed by this Court in CWP No.16737 of 2011, titled as Om Parkash Dua v. Punjab State Electricity Board (P-6) and dated 20.12.2016 in CWP No.10994 of 2016, Pritpal SONIKA 2018.09.28 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No.25029 OF 2018 --2-- Singh vs. Punjab State Power Corporation ltd. (P-8) and in view of letter dated 11.05.2015 (P-9) whereby the benefit of 23 years promotional increment has already been granted to the similarly situated employees. 2.

At the very outset of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though legal notice dated 29.05.2018 (P-12) was duly served upon the respondents but till date neither any response has been received nor any conscious decision has been taken thereon. He further submits that petitioner feels satisfied in case direction is issued to respondent No.1 to decide legal notice (P-12) within a stipulated period. 3.

Accordingly, instant petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent(s) to consider the case unfolded by the petitioner in legal notice (Annexure P-12) and to take a conscious decision in the light of judgments already referred to in the legal notice, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 4.

However, if petitioner still feels aggrieved by any order of the aforesaid authority, he shall be at liberty to approach this Court or to have recourse to the other remedies available under law. SEPTEMBER 28, 2018 (JASPAL SINGH) sonika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes/No SONIKA 2018.09.28 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh