Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ram Phal Vs. V.

Ram Phal vs V.

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Jan 21, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1070985

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ram Phal

Respondent

V.

Excerpt

c.w.p.no.300 of 2013 [1].in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh c.w.p.no.300 of 2013 (o&m) date of decision:21. 1.2013 ram phal .petitioner v. haryana vidyut parsaran nigam limited and others .respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice rajesh bindal present: mr.k.l. dhingra, advocate for the petitioner..rajesh bindal j. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the persons junior to the petitioner were promoted earlier on account of benefit of reservation having been granted to them, the petitioner, after he had been promoted to the post, was entitled to stepping up of his pay to bring the same at par with his juniors in the feeder cadre. in support of his argument, he placed reliance upon a judgment of this court in c.w.p.no.5956 of 2008 -charan dass v. state of haryana, decided on 18.11.2008 and the instructions issued by the government, which were adopted by uttar haryana bijli vitran nigam ltd.he further submitted that for grant of the relief, the petitioner has made representation dated 19.7.2011 (annexure p- 9) to respondent no.3. he further submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied at this stage in case a direction is issued to respondent no.3 to decide the claim made by the petitioner in terms of the law laid down by this court within certain specified time as the respondents have not decided the claim in the last more than one year. after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, however, without commenting on the merits of the controversy, respondent no.3 is c.w.p.no.300 of 2013 [2].directed to take a final decision on the claim made by the petitioner vide his representation dated 19.7.2011, which was followed by representation dated 21.8.2012 (annexure p-10).within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. the petition stands disposed of. (rajesh bindal) judge 21.1.2013 mk

Full Judgment

C.W.P.No.300 of 2013 [1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.300 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision:

21. 1.2013 Ram Phal .Petitioner v.

Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited and others .Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr.K.L.

Dhingra, Advocate for the petitioner..Rajesh Bindal J.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the persons junior to the petitioner were promoted earlier on account of benefit of reservation having been granted to them, the petitioner, after he had been promoted to the post, was entitled to stepping up of his pay to bring the same at par with his juniors in the feeder cadre.

In support of his argument, he placed reliance upon a judgment of this court in C.W.P.No.5956 of 2008 -Charan Dass v.

State of Haryana, decided on 18.11.2008 and the instructions issued by the Government, which were adopted by Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam LTD.He further submitted that for grant of the relief, the petitioner has made representation dated 19.7.2011 (Annexure P- 9) to respondent No.3.

He further submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied at this stage in case a direction is issued to respondent No.3 to decide the claim made by the petitioner in terms of the law laid down by this court within certain specified time as the respondents have not decided the claim in the last more than one year.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, however, without commenting on the merits of the controversy, respondent No.3 is C.W.P.No.300 of 2013 [2].directed to take a final decision on the claim made by the petitioner vide his representation dated 19.7.2011, which was followed by representation dated 21.8.2012 (Annexure P-10).within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The petition stands disposed of.

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge 21.1.2013 mk

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial