Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 150 views

    Letter 2

    Uploaded by

    Adan Hooda
    This document summarizes the key events in a civil writ petition filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court regarding the withdrawal of an additional increment granted to a pharmacist. It details that the petitioner was granted an additional increment after 8 years of service including adhoc service as per government rules. However, a new accountant later questioned this and threatened to withdraw the increment, forcing the petitioner to file a CWP. The High Court has since granted a stay on the withdrawal of the increment until the matter is resolved.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Letter 2

    Uploaded by

    Adan Hooda
    150 views2 pages
    This document summarizes the key events in a civil writ petition filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court regarding the withdrawal of an additional increment granted to a pharmacist. It details that the petitioner was granted an additional increment after 8 years of service including adhoc service as per government rules. However, a new accountant later questioned this and threatened to withdraw the increment, forcing the petitioner to file a CWP. The High Court has since granted a stay on the withdrawal of the increment until the matter is resolved.

    Original Title

    letter 2

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes the key events in a civil writ petition filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court regarding the withdrawal of an additional increment granted to a pharmacist. It details that the petitioner was granted an additional increment after 8 years of service including adhoc service as per government rules. However, a new accountant later questioned this and threatened to withdraw the increment, forcing the petitioner to file a CWP. The High Court has since granted a stay on the withdrawal of the increment until the matter is resolved.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    150 views2 pages

    Letter 2

    Uploaded by

    Adan Hooda
    This document summarizes the key events in a civil writ petition filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court regarding the withdrawal of an additional increment granted to a pharmacist. It details that the petitioner was granted an additional increment after 8 years of service including adhoc service as per government rules. However, a new accountant later questioned this and threatened to withdraw the increment, forcing the petitioner to file a CWP. The High Court has since granted a stay on the withdrawal of the increment until the matter is resolved.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Case No.1:- Event wise factual position of CWP No.

    19606/2017 as under:-
    1. That I had joined the post of Pharmacist in HSEB Thermal wing at Faridabad on
    10-12-1985 on Adhoc basis. The Haryana State Govt. issued the instructions for granting
    of additional increment on completion of Eight/Eighteen years of service vide letter no.
    138/92-IP(FD) dated 7/8/92 duly adopted by erstwhile HSEB memo no. Ch-7/11(435)
    F/L dated 10/9/1992 (Photocopies of both circulars/instructions attached as Annexure P1
    and P2).
    As such I had completed 8(Eight) years of service on 10/12/1993 and I had
    accured the benefit of 1st additional increment on admissible date i.e 10/12/1993 as per
    above mentioned circular, which was granted by the erstwhile HSEB to me and same was
    payable wef 01/01/1994.
    2. Subsequently Haryana Govt. with a view to removing the stagnation in service of
    employees of Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ categories causes in the wake of previous instructions,
    the State Govt. after careful consideration have decided to grant time bound higher
    standard scale to Haryana Govt. employees of Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ categories in
    replacement of earlier scheme vide letter 1/34-93-4PR(FD) dated 8/2/1994 which
    effective from 01/01/1994 which was adopted by the erstwhile HSEB vide memo no Ch-
    8/11(479)F93-94 dated 10/5/1994 with the same terms and conditions. In the State Govt.
    letter clause no. 14 and Secretary HSEB letter clause no. 13 elaborate that “The benefit of
    additional increment already granted to an employee prior to introducing the time bound
    higher standard scale i.e 01/01/1994, on completion of 8 and 18 years of service or on
    10th and 20th year point of pay scale in terms of earlier instructions will not be
    withdrawn”. (Photocopies of State Govt. letter and Secretary HSEB letter attached as
    Annexure P3 and P4 for perusal).
    3. As far as the question of Adhoc service and regular satisfactory service is concerned, now
    the State Govt. vide its letter no.9/24/74-4PR(FD) dated 20/8/1996 has decided that the
    period of adhoc service, which was followed by regular appointment under the State
    Govt. shall be taken in to consideration while calculating the prescribed length of service
    of 8 and 18 years under the scheme. The Board in its meeting held on 25/10/1996 has
    approved the adoption of this clarification for Board’s employees. A copy of the State
    Govt. letter dated 20/8/1996 is, therefore, sent herewith for information and necessary
    action.
    The above decision of the State Govt. circulated vide its letter dated 20/8/1996
    regarding counting of adhoc service is applicable for the grant of additional increment(s)
    on completion of 8/18 years of service only, and is not applicable for the grant of Higher
    standard pay scale(s) vide State Govt. letter no. 9/24/74-4PR(FD) dated 20/8/96 which
    was adopted by Secy. HSEB Panchkula memo no. Ch 304/11(435) dated 7/11/96
    (Photocopies of both letters attached as Annexure P5 and P6). So question of denial of
    one additional increment already granted on 10/12/93 does not arise.
    4. I want to draw your kind attentions that the service book was regularly pre-audited from
    the C.A.O, UHBVNL, Panchkula and no point was ever raised while granting of revision
    of pay during 5th and 6th pay commission implementation and in addition to granting of 1st
    , 2nd and 3rd ACP etc.
    5. After a tenure of almost 24 years and after joining of Sh. Rajesh Rohilla Divisional
    Accountant in the office of City Division, Rohtak he raised the matter of granting one
    additional increment granted on 10/12/93 deliberately, which appears to be some personal
    grudge by wrongly interpretations of Govt./Board/Nigam’s instruction of the rules in the
    mind of A.O Pay fixation office of C.A.O, UHBVNL, Panchkula though all the relevant
    circulars were personally shown to the said D/Accountant. Sh. Rajesh Rohilla
    D/Accountant clearly said that “Mai Teri ye additional increment Katwa kar chhoduga”.
    6. As such there was no other option left for me for which he compelled me to file a Civil
    Writ Petition in Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh. Accordingly, I
    filed a CWP in the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court against withdrawal of
    additional increment already granted for which the Hon’ble High Court granted the stay
    against this withdrawal of additional increment. A copy of stay order granted by the
    Hon’ble High Court was given in the office of XEN City (OP) Division, UHBVNL,
    Rohtak vide memo no. Ch 1738/HC RTK dated 22/9/2017 (Photostat of the same
    attached for ready reference as Annexure P7).
    7. These are the event wise deliberations of filing of CWP No. 19606 of 2017 for your kind
    information and further necessary action.

    DA as above

    You might also like