Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court

Reduction in Pensionary Benefits Due to Withdrawal of Special Increments Upholds – P&H HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment dated 3rd October 2023, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled on a case filed by Bhajan Singh against the State of Punjab and others. The petitioner had challenged the withdrawal of certain increments, which had a direct impact on his pensionary benefits.

The High Court observed, "The increments which had been granted to the petitioner at the time of his promotion were in the nature of special increments." This observation played a crucial role in the decision.

Bhajan Singh, who had retired from service in 2006, claimed that the increments he received in 1992 and 1995, more than ten years before his retirement, were wrongfully withdrawn without prior notice. He argued that these increments were granted based on his exceptional hard work and the hazardous conditions he worked under.

The State contended that these increments were special in nature, not promotional, and pointed to the judgment in Tarlok Chand's case, which limited the protection of such increments to a maximum of four.

The High Court, while acknowledging the dispute over the nature of the increments, upheld the withdrawal of nine out of thirteen special increments, in line with the Tarlok Chand case. It stated, "The petitioner apart from annual increments could have been given a maximum of four special increments only in view of the ratio of Tarlok Chand’s case."

The Court further addressed the delay in refixation of pay, asserting that the matter was raised only after the petitioner's retirement in 2006. It dismissed the petition, finding no grounds to issue directions.

This judgment serves as a precedent, reaffirming the legal distinction between promotional and special increments and their applicability to pension calculations. It underscores the importance of timely addressing such matters to avoid future disputes over pensionary benefits.

Bhajan Singh was represented by Mr. R.K. Arora and Ms. Saguna Arora, Advocates, while Mr. Aman Dhir served as the Deputy Advocate General for Punjab during the proceedings.

Date of Decision: 3.10.2023

Bhajan Singh vs State of Punjab and others 

                             

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Bhajan_Singh_vs_State_Of_Punjab_And_Ors_on_3_October_2023.pdf"]

Latest Legal News