Ram Kumar Petitioner v. State Of Haryana And Ors. S, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to fix his pay scale and grant consequential benefits (including pension), on the ground that he was receiving a lower salary than a junior employee and a lower pension. The petition proceeded by way of notice of motion. At the court's request, the Additional Advocate General, Haryana accepted notice on behalf of the respondent-State. The petitioner informed the Court that he had served a legal notice dated 17.05.2016 (Annexure P-5) on the respondents but that no action had been taken on it. The petitioner stated he would be satisfied if the Court directed the respondents to decide that legal notice within a stipulated period.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the court should issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to fix the petitioner's pay scale and grant consequential benefits (including pension) because he alleges he is paid less than a junior employee.

Whether the respondents should be directed to decide the petitioner's legal notice dated 17.05.2016 within a specified timeframe.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to fix his pay scale and to grant consequential benefits, asserting that he was receiving a lower salary than a junior employee and a lower pension.

The petitioner had served a legal notice dated 17.05.2016 (Annexure P-5) on the respondents, but no action had been taken on that notice.

The petitioner stated he would be satisfied if the respondents were directed to decide the legal notice within a stipulated time period.

Respondents' Position

The opinion records that the Additional Advocate General, Haryana accepted notice on behalf of the respondent-State. No substantive arguments or responses from the respondents on the merits are detailed in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's treatment of the matter was brief and procedural in nature. The sequence of the Court's reasoning and steps, as reflected in the opinion, is as follows:

The petition under Articles 226/227 was placed before the Court by way of notice of motion.

At the Court's request, the Additional Advocate General accepted notice for the respondents, and the petitioner's counsel was asked to supply copies of the paper book to the State counsel.

The petitioner informed the Court that a legal notice dated 17.05.2016 had been served on the respondents and that no action had been taken on it; the petitioner stated he would be satisfied if the Court directed the respondents to decide that notice within a specified period.

In light of the petitioner's expressed willingness to have the respondents decide the legal notice, the Court disposed of the petition by directing the respondents to consider and decide the grievances set out in the legal notice within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The Court further made clear that if the petitioner remained aggrieved by the respondents' decision (or lack of adequate redress), he would be at liberty to approach the Court again.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the grievances ventilated in the petitioner's legal notice dated 17.05.2016 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

Implications:

Direct effect on the parties: The respondents are required to examine and decide the legal notice (Annexure P-5) within three months of receiving a certified copy of the Court's order. The petitioner is thereby afforded a prompt administrative decision on his stated complaints about pay and pension disparities.

Residual remedy: If the petitioner remains dissatisfied with the respondents' decision, the petitioner retains the liberty to approach the Court again.

Precedential effect: The opinion does not state or announce any new legal principle or binding precedent; it is a case-specific procedural disposal requiring administrative action by the respondents.

Ram Kumar Petitioner v. State Of Haryana And Ors. S

Jaspal Singh, J. (Oral):— Through instant petition preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to fix the pay scale of the petitioner and grant all the consequential benefits along with interest as he was getting less salary than his junior employee and also getting less pension.

2. Notice of motion.

3. At the asking of the Court, Mr. C.S. Bakshi, Additional Advocate General, Haryana has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned counsel for the petitioner is advised to supply requisite number of copies of the paper book to learned State counsel, during the course of the day.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though legal notice dated 17.05.2016 (Annexure P-5) was moved to the respondents but till date no action has been taken. He submits that petitioner feels satisfied in case direction is issued to respondent(s) to decide legal notice, within a stipulated period.

5. Accordingly, instant petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent(s) to look into and consider the various grouse(s) ventilated by the petitioner in his legal notice dated 17.05.2016 (Annexure P-5), within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

6. However, in case, the petitioner still feels aggrieved of the order passed by respondent(s), he shall be at liberty to approach this Court.

CWP No. 19121 of 2017