Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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