Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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