Virender Kumar v. Director Tech Edu Haryana And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.: 118 Civil Writ Petition No.22222 of 2024 Date of Decision: September 05, 2024 Verinder Kumar ..... PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

Director of Technical Education & another ..... RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA PRESENT: - Mr. Narinder Singh Behgal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Tribhuvan Dahiya, J (Oral) The petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to re-fix the petitioners' pension by granting them benefit of annual increment in the last year of retirement. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioner has completed one year satisfactory service prior to his retirement, and became entitled to one annual increment on that basis. The law in this regard stands settled by the Supreme Court in The Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL and others v. C.P. Mundinamani and others, 2023 SCC Online SC 401, and this Court in CWP No.8364 of 2024, titled Suresh Kumar Singla and others v. State of Haryana & others, decided on 16.04.2024. He further contends that at this stage, the petitioner will be satisfied in case he is permitted to make a fresh representation before the concerned respondent raising the grievance as has been raised in this petition, and the same may be ordered to be decided within a specified period in terms of the aforementioned settled law.

3.

Notice of motion.

AVIN KUMAR 2024.09.06 08:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order.

CWP No.22222 of 2024 [2] 4.

Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and submits that in case any representation is filed by the petitioner within one week from today, the same will be decided by the first respondent-Director of Technical Education, Department of Higher Education, keeping in view the law laid down in C.P. Mundinamani case (supra) and Suresh Kumar Singla case (supra), by passing a speaking order thereupon within three months of receiving the representation.

5.

In view of the statement made, learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection to the petition being disposed of in terms thereof. 6.

Ordered accordingly.

(Tribhuvan Dahiya) Judge September 05, 2024 avin Whether Speaking/ Reasoned:

Yes/ No Whether Reportable:

Yes/ No AVIN KUMAR 2024.09.06 08:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order.