Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad 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