Disposed

Gurnam Singh v. Rajiv Kumar Batra and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 May 2009COCP/416/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a continuing writ petition regarding the petitioner's request for retention in service until age 60, the High Court observed that the respondent had refused the request but dropped the pending contempt proceedings initiated for non-compliance with an earlier order, leaving the petitioner free to challenge the refusal via proper appellate remedy.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings dropped; petitioner directed to challenge the refusal order via proper remedy.

Gurnam Singh Vs Rajiv Kumar Batra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

C.O.C.P. No.416 of 2009

¶3

Date of Decision : May 11, 2009

Gurnam Singh

....Petitioner

Versus

Rajiv Kumar Batra and anoher

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

¶10

Present : Mr. M.K. Sangwan, Advocate for Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate

¶11

Mr. S.K. Hooda, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana

¶12

T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)

¶13

On February 19, 2009 while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner the High Court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for retention in service till the age of 60 years and to pass a speaking order within a period of four weeks in view of the recommendations which stood attached with the writ petition as Annexures P3 and P4.

¶14

Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 today in the Court, which is taken on record and copy thereof supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶15

It stands mentioned in the reply that after receipt of copy of the order on 27.2.2009, the competent authority passed an order on

¶16

C.O.C.P. No.416 of 2009 -2-

¶17

23.3.2009. Copy of the order has been appended as Annexure R.1 with the reply. In the said order, it stands mentioned that the aforesaid recommendations Annexures R.3 and P.4 were examined in the light of Government instruction/clarifications and available record in Irrigation Department, Head Office/Circle Office and conclusion arrived at thereafter that the petitioner, who was appointed as a Mate and now working as Work Mistry was liable to be retired from Government service on attaining the age of 58 years in view of the instructions issued by Finance Department Memo No. 10/15/97-IPR(FD) dated 30.12.2003. Accordingly, the request of the petitioner for considering his case for retention in service upto the age of 60 years was declined.

¶18

In view of the above, the contempt proceedings are dropped.

¶19

However, the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the order dated 23.3.2009 (Annexure R.1) in accordance with law, if so advised.

¶20

May 11, 2009 satish

¶21

( T.P.S. MANN ) JUDGE

Gurnam Singh v. Rajiv Kumar Batra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurnam Singh v. Rajiv Kumar Batra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kumar Vs N P S Aulakh and Anr.

M/S Jethu Mal Mohan Lal and Anr. Vs A.S. Guliani and Anr.

Monu Vs Navdeep Singh and Ors.

Kuldip Singh and Ors. Vs Ram Gopal Chadha and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs Anurag Rastogi, Commissioner and Director Gen. Sch. Edu. Hry.

Basant Kumar Vs Rakesh Kumar and Anr.