High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/6452/2018disposed of

Kashmiri Lal v. Pspcl And ORS.

2018-03-15Mr. Justice Rameshwar Singh Malik2 pages

CWP No. 6452 OF 2018 --1--

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6452 OF 2018 DECIDED ON: MARCH 15, 2018 KASHMIRI LAL .....PETITIONER

VERSUS

PUNJAB STATE POWER CORP. LTD .....RESPONDENTS AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH

Present:

Mrs. Rupinder K Kanwal, Advocate for the petitioners.

***** JASPAL SINGH, J.

By virtue of instant petition preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought issuance of a writ especially in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to grant the benefit of promotional increment(s) in view of circular dated 23.04.1990 (Annexure P-2) and especially in view of judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 20139 of 2015 (Annexure P-4) granting the financial benefit of promotional increment to all employees who have completed 23 years of regular service as on March 17, 2010 along with interest @ 18% p.a. 2.

At the very outset of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits petitioner feels satisfied in case direction is issued to respondent(s) to decide representation dated 06.12.2017 (Annexure P-6), within a stipulated period.

Sonika 2018.03.16 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No. 6452 OF 2018 --2-- 3.

Instant petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Patiala to look into the grievances unfolded by the petitioner in representation dated 06.12.2017 (Annexure P-6) and to decide the same as per circular dated 23.04.1990 (Annexure P-2) especially in view of judgment passed by this Court in CWP-20139-2015, captioned as "Chiman Singh v. Punjab State power Corporation Ltd. and ors", decided on 29.02.2016 (Annexure P-4), within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, relief shall stand restricted to 38 months in view of Full Bench judgment of this Court in "Saroj Kumari v. State of Punjab and others", 1998(3) SCT 664.

However, if the petitioner still feels aggrieved against the order passed by the concerned authority, he shall be at liberty to have recourse to the other remedies as well as to approach this Court. MARCH 15, 2018 (JASPAL SINGH) sonika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes/No Sonika 2018.03.16 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh