Punjab and Haryana High Court stays salary of Additional Chief Secretary, IAS officers posted in Health Department

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, May 20

Rapping the state of Punjab for dragging its feet in a retired Class IV employee’s case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed the salary of the Additional Chief Secretary and all IAS officers posted in the Department of Health and Family Welfare, including the Director, Health and Family Welfare. The order will remain in operation till the settlement of the petitioner-employee’s claim.

‘Dept dragging feet’

The petitioner retired from a Class IV post. It is evident that the department is dragging its feet in taking decision, despite adjournment for a period of approximately four months. Justice Anil Kshetarpal

The direction by Justice Anil Kshetarpal of high court came during the hearing of a petition filed by retired employee Shanker Lal against the state of Punjab and respondents. Among other things, he was praying for the issuance of a direction to the respondents to count the entire daily wage service he rendered before his regularisation for determining various benefits, including retirement.

The state counsel, on a previous date of hearing in January, sought time from the Bench to file a reply to the contentions raised by the employee in the petition. But the reply was not filed and placed before the Bench when the matter came up for resumed hearing four months later.

Meanwhile, the petitioner told Justice Kshetarpal’s Bench that an identical issue had already been decided by a Division Bench of the high court in the case of “Harbans Lal versus the state of Punjab and others”. In fact, the civil writ petition, referred to, was filed way back in 2010 and decided the same year.

Faced with the situation, the counsel representing the state did not dispute the fact regarding the earlier decision. At the same time, the counsel contended that the department required more time to take a decision in the petitioner’s matter.

After hearing the rival contentions and going through the documents, Justice Kshetarpal asserted: “The petitioner retired from the Class-IV post. It is evident that the department is dragging its feet in taking decision, despite adjournment for a period of approximately four months. Keeping in view the facts, the writ petition is disposed of while directing the respondents to take a final decision within a period of one month from today positively.”

Before parting with the order, Justice Kshetarpal ordered the stay on the disbursement of the salary.