Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/3946/2019 on 30 December 2019
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3946 of 2019
Decided on: 30.12.2019 Rajinder Singh Patial ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr.Ashok Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge (Oral) Case of the petitioner is that he was recruited in the respondent-Department on 23.06.1987 and was placed CISF at MPT, Chennai Port-rest. His annual increment before 01.01.1996 was fixed on 1st of June every year and at the time of fixation of 5th Central Pay Commission, his pay was fixed at Rs.3,275/- w.e.f. 10.10.1997. The grievance of the petitioner is that his increment fixed on 1st of June every year has not been correctly fixed and this had caused him a huge financial loss. Further grievance of the petitioner is that his basic pay is amounting to Rs.38,100/- per month, whereas the basic pay of his batch mate is Rs.39,200/- per month. According to the petitioner, he came to know about these facts after promulgation of 7th Pay Commission. High Court of H.P. 2019:HHC:11342-DB ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 06:40:39 :::CIS
2
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that various representations made in this regard by the petitioner to the respondents, vide Annexures P-2 to P-6, dated 22.04.2017, 25.09.2017, 09.04.2018 and 04.10.2018, respectively, have not been considered and decided by the respondents.
3. In view of the above, we deem it fit to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the representation(s) of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of alongwith pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. ( L. Narayana Swamy), Chief Justice ( Jyotsna Rewal Dua), Judge December 30, 2019 ( himalvi ) High Court of H.P. 2019:HHC:11342-DB ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2026 06:40:39 :::CIS