IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1703 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision 17.12.2010 State of Punjab and others -----Appellants Versus Sh. Dev Raj Sharma and others ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the appellant. Mr. S.D. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anupam Sharma, Advocate for the caveator 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 20.5.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge holding that once the service of the petitioner rendered in the U.T, Chandigarh as an Inspector has been considered for promotion then there was no reason to deny him the benefit of pay fixation by counting that period for that purpose. Consequently, the learned Single Judge has quashed order dated 18.05.1989 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar Cantt.(P-1) ; order dated 16.6.1989 passed by Inspector General of Police, U.T. Chandigarh (P-2); order LPA No. 1703 of 2010 (O&M) -2- dated 27.8.1990 (P-5) and order dated 16.10.1991 (P-7) passed by the Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh. The respondents were directed to give the benefit of service rendered as Inspector to the petitioner w.e.f 01.05.1983 for fixation of his pay. The writ petitioner-respondent has been held entitled to actual monetary benefits by restricting the same to three years prior to the date of filing of the petition which was filed on 27.02.1992. Learned State counsel has pointed out that there is a clerical mistake in the concluding para of the order dated 20.05.2010 of the learned Single Judge where relief has been granted, inasmuch as the writ petitioner-respondent has been granted the benefit of salary as Inspector w.e.f 1.05.1983 whereas he was sent on deputation to U.T Police on 23.05.1985. The aforesaid date has to be corrected by substituting the date as 23.05.1985 instead of 01.05.1983. The above factual position has not been disputed by Mr. Sharma, learned Senior counsel for the applicant-caveator- respondent. In view of the above, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. However, the date of 01.05.1983 in the last para of the judgment shall be read as 23.05.1985. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE December 17, 2010 G.Arora