Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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