HC restrains Haryana from effecting promotion of principals

The HC bench of Justice AG Masih said that promotion, if any, without reframing of the seniority list as per the SC direction would be subject to the outcome of the present case

The Punjab and Haryana high court on Tuesday restrained the Haryana government from effecting promotion of teachers to the posts of principal.

HT Image

The high court bench of Justice AG Masih said that promotion, if any, without reframing of the seniority list as per the Supreme Court direction would be subject to the outcome of the present case. It also directed that further promotion be not made till reframing of the such seniority list in case the factual position is as projected by the petitioners.

The three promotions effected in January and February this year were challenged by 10 teachers who had told the court that there is a direction by the apex court in 2018 with regard to the reframing of the seniority list within a period of three months.

However, without complying with the orders, government has effected three promotions and is not revising the seniority list of lecturers. Petitioners have been approaching the respondents authorities by way of representation and personal meetings on various dates. However, the requests of the petitioners remained as a dead letter, they claimed. The court has fixed next date of hearing for September 22.

STAY ON RECOVERY OF EXCESS AMOUNT PAID FROM EX-HC JUDGE’S PENSION

The Punjab and Haryana high court has stayed the recovery of excess payment being effected by State bank of India from former high court judge Justice SK Jain.

The high court bench of Justice SN Satyanarayana has sought response from the bank, Haryana government and high court administration by September 9. The court acted on the plea of Jain, who was elevated in March 1992 as HC judge from a judicial officer and transferred to Allahabad high court. He retired in 1995. He had raised a dispute about computing his 10-year service period and disposing of that matter in 2015, the Supreme Court had said that whatever amount already paid to him would not be recovered.

However, in May 2020, the bank started recovery of ₹3.26 lakh paid as excess fixed medical allowance with monthly pension from 2006 to February 2020.

He had told the court that bank has acted in violation of the SC order and effected recovery of first instalment without intimating him.