Anoop Singh vs The Punjab State Electricity … on 22 July, 2009

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH.

                                                    C.W.P. No. 10757 of 2009
                                           DATE OF DECISION : 22.07.2009

Anoop Singh

                                                              .... PETITIONER

                                    Versus

The Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and another

                                                          ..... RESPONDENTS


CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL


Present:     Mr. J.S. Jaikdka, Advocate,
             for the petitioner.

                          ***

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral )

The petitioner is working as Revenue Accountant at Sub

Division, Bassian, Punjab State Electricity Board. In the year 2004, he was

placed under suspension on initiation of a departmental enquiry.

Subsequently, one month thereafter, he was re-instated. Concededly, the

departmental proceedings have not been finalised till date. It is the case of

the petitioner that after the year 2004, he has not been granted any

increment and he is getting less salary every month.

The petitioner has filed the instant petition for issuing

directions to the respondents to grant him the annual increments treating the

period of suspension as non-duty period, in view of the Board Circular

dated 2.6.1977. It is the case of the petitioner that according to this Circular,
CWP No. 10757 of 2009 -2-

if the disciplinary proceedings are not finalised within two years, then the

official can be granted the annual increments by treating his suspension

period as non-duty period, subject to the outcome of the disciplinary

proceedings. It is further the case of the petitioner that for this relief, he

made a detailed representation, copy of which has been annexed as

Annexure P-2. Neither the said representation has been considered and

decided nor the annual increment has been released so far. Counsel for the

petitioner submits that at this stage, the petitioner will be satisfied if a

direction is issued to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the said

representation in accordance with law by passing a speaking order.

In view of the above, without issuing notice of motion as it will

un-necessary delay the matter, this petition is disposed of with a direction to

respondent No.2 to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-2)

in accordance with law by passing a speaking order, expeditiously,

preferably within a period of three months.

July 22, 2009                              ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
ndj                                                 JUDGE