AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 170 wordsJagmohan Bansal, J
The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 28.12.1998 whereby respondent No.3 was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant (Accounts).
The petitioner is assailing promotion of respondent No.3. The petitioner as well as respondent No.3 has retired on attaining the age of superannuation. From the reply, it comes out that respondent No.3 was granted pay scale after consulting competent authority including Chandigarh Administration. Initially pay scale was revised as per Central Government pattern and thereafter as per Punjab State pattern.
The impugned order was passed in 1998. There seems no reason to disturb benefit extended to respondent No.3 after her retirement. The official respondent has supported its decision to grant benefits to respondent No.3 with documentary evidence.
In the wake of above factual position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.