NIKKA SINGH Vs. MARKFED PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, by this writ petition, is challenging the order dated 14.6.1986 (copy annexure P/8) vide which the earlier order an -nexure P/2 was altered regarding the increments given to the petitioner for the period from 10.1.1979 to 11.4.1983.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that service of the petitioner was terminated. However, he was ordered be reinstated by the Labour Court. Counsel for the petitioner states that the order of the Labour Court mentioned reinstatement with continuity of service and without back wages and for the period between 12.1.1979 and 11.4.1983, the petitioner was treated as on leave of the kind due. The respondents have treated the said period as leave without pay. In annexure P/3, the period of absence being treated as leave without pay, it has been mentioned that it is not counted towards increment. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that:

(3.) THIS is not a clerical mistake and the alteration is because according to the respondents as the period as treated as leave without pay, the benefit of increment is not granted. Thus, the petitioner has been able to make out a case that he was not heard when the impugned order was passed. This petition deserves to be allowed on this point and I do not want to go on the merits of the other points raised before me.