Jai Narayan and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others

Jai Narayan and Others vs State of Haryana and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Aug 19, 2014

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1162239

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1162239
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On: Aug 19, 2014
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jai Narayan and Others

Respondent

State of Haryana and Others

Excerpt

.....they had completed more than six months of service, they have been denied the annual increments on the ground that they had retired from service on or before 30th june, the cuf-off date fixed by the department for grant of annual increments. learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a decision of this court in ramesh kumar and others versus state of haryana and others.2011 (4) recent services judgments 361. dass narotam201408.20 15:43 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document cwp no.16471 of 2014 -2- learned counsel submits that for claiming the said benefit, the petitioners have already served a legal notice dated 1.5.2014 upon the respondents, copy of which has been annexed with this petition as annexure p-2, but till date, no decision has been taken on the same. in view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioners.without issuing notice of motion as it will un-necessary delay the matter, we dispose of this petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the aforesaid legal notice (annexure p-2).in accordance with law, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners by passing a speaking order, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months. ( satish kumar mittal ) judge august 19, 2014 ( arun palli ) ndj judge dass narotam201408.20 15:43 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16471 of 2014 DATE OF DECISION : 19.08.2014 Jai Narayan and others ...PETITIONERS Versus State of Haryana and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN PALLI Present : Mr.Dharmender Singh Rawat, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.*** SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.

( Oral ) The petitioneRs.who were working on various posts with the Irrigation Department, Haryana, have retired on or before 30th June of the retirement yeaRs.Their grouse is that they were granted the annual increments on 1st July of the previous year of their retirement, and in spite of the fact that thereafter they had completed more than six months of service, they have been denied the annual increments on the ground that they had retired from service on or before 30th June, the cuf-off date fixed by the Department for grant of annual increments.

Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a decision of this Court in Ramesh Kumar and others versus State of Haryana and otheRs.2011 (4) Recent Services Judgments 361.

DASS NAROTAM201408.20 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.16471 of 2014 -2- Learned counsel submits that for claiming the said benefit, the petitioners have already served a legal notice dated 1.5.2014 upon the respondents, copy of which has been annexed with this petition as Annexure P-2, but till date, no decision has been taken on the same.

In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioneRs.without issuing notice of motion as it will un-necessary delay the matter, we dispose of this petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the aforesaid legal notice (Annexure P-2).in accordance with law, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners by passing a speaking order, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months.

( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE August 19, 2014 ( ARUN PALLI ) ndj JUDGE DASS NAROTAM201408.20 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2014 Same Parties Jai Narayan and Others vs State of Haryana and Others Same Subject Education