IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.16642 of 1989
Date of Decision: September 09, 2009
Dr. Mohinder Singh Gehlon
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab & Another
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: - Mr. Amit Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate
General, Punjab, for the respondents.
. . .
AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to grant benefit of two advance increments in view of
qualification of the petitioner viz. M.Sc. in Dairying, in accordance with policy
decision of the State Government, Annexure P-2 dated 4.4.1963. Further
prayer is for grant of consequential benefits.
Order, Annexure P-2, issued by the Under Secretary to
Government, Forest & Animal Husbandry Department indicates that the
Government had agreed to grant two advance increments to Veterinary
Assistant Surgeons possessing the qualification of M.V.Sc. and three advance
increments to persons holding Doctorate viz. Ph.D or B.Sc. subject to the
condition that these qualifications are obtained at one’s own expense.
CWP No.16642 of 1989 [2]
Written statement has been filed in which the stand has
been taken that the petitioner had taken a degree of Masters of Science in
Dairying. On behalf of the respondents, it is the pleaded case that only those
persons were eligible for benefit under Annexure P-2 who had passed M.V.Sc.
or Doctorate. The petitioner, however, does not possess either of the degrees
and therefore, is not entitled to benefit under Annexure P-2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to
show any material to indicate that M.Sc. in Dairying would be equivalent to
M.V.Sc or Doctorate.
I find that case of the petitioner is not covered under
Annexure P-2 and petitioner is not entitled to benefits thereunder.
No ground for interference in extraordinary writ
jurisdiction is made out.
The petition is dismissed.
(AJAI LAMBA)
September 09, 2009 JUDGE
Avin
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?