Madan Lal Verma v. State Of Punjab & ORS

CM-4342-4343-LPA-2017 in/and LPA-1993-2017 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-4342-4343-LPA-2017 in/and LPA-1993-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 06, 2018 Madan Lal Verma .....Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA

Present:

Mr.Ruhani Chadha, Advocate for the appellant. ........

SURYA KANT, J.(ORAL) CM-4342-LPA-2017 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM stands disposed of.

LPA-1993-2017 The instant Letters Patent appeal assails the order dated 07.06.2016 whereby claim of the appellant for grant of revised pay scale of `200-450 w.e.f. 26.06.1968 and `225-500 w.e.f. 01.02.1971 has been declined by the learned Single Judge on the ground of inordinate delay and laches of almost 36 years, as well as on merits. [2] The appeal is accompanied with an application seeking condonation of delay of 391 days in filing the same. It is averred in the application that because of old age, the appellant could not visit Chandigarh frequently and it was in July 2017 that he could file the appeal. [3] Regardless of the delay of more than one year in filing the appeal, we have heard learned counsel for the appellant on merits and gone MEENU 2018.08.16 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

CM-4342-4343-LPA-2017 in/and LPA-1993-2017 (O&M) -2through the judgment of learned Single Judge. It has been found, as a matter of fact, that pay scale of `160-400 was admissible and granted to the appellant at the time of regularisation of the services i.e. 01.01.1973 which was further revised to `225-500 w.e.f. 16.07.1973. It has also been clarified that though relaxation was given to Punjabi and Hindi Instructors like the appellant for the purpose of regularisation of their services, but no such concession was admissible or given for the purpose of grant of higher pay scale. It has further been explained that the appellant cannot claim parity with Yashpal Singla, whose civil suit was decreed, for the reason that the appellant did not have 32 years of regular service to claim the benefit of 'Assured Career Progression Scheme', though he was entitled to the benefit of 8-18 years of service ,which were actually granted to him w.e.f. 01.07.1986 and 27.01.1991, respectively.

[4] We find that the learned Single Judge has examined appellant's claim minutely even though it has also been held that such claim was raised by the appellant at a highly belated stage.

[5] In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Singe Judge. [6] Dismissed.

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE August 06, 2018 ( SUDIP AHLUWALIA ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No MEENU 2018.08.16 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh