Dismissed

Raj Kumar Goel v. R.N. Prashar and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 May 2009COCP/528/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court held that the writ petition became infructuous as the withheld gratuity amount was paid to the petitioner. However, the court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation concerning interest on delayed pensionary benefits within two months.

What did the court decide?

Authorities directed to decide the petitioners representation regarding interest on delayed pensionary benefits within two months.

Raj Kumar Goel Vs R.N. Prashar and… — 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. 528 of 2009 Date of Decision : May 20, 2009

Raj Kumar Goel

....Petitioner

Versus

R.N.Prasher, IAS and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

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

¶9

Present : Mr. R.N.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. S.K.Hooda, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents.

¶11

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

¶12

The writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by a Division Bench of the High Court on July 30, 2008, by directing the Inquiry Officer to complete the inquiry within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which, the respondents were directed to release the gratuity amount of Rs.82,881/- to the petitioner forthwith, subject to the ultimate outcome of the pending inquiry. As regards the claim of the petitioner regarding grant of interest on the delayed payment of pensionary benefits, the petitioner was directed to make a representation to the authorities concerned for that relief.

¶13

According to the petitioner, neither inquiry was completed by the

¶14

C.O.C.P. No. 528 of 2009 -2-

¶15

Inquiry Officer nor the gratuity amount of Rs.82,881/- released in his favour. Moreover, the petitioner had already submitted a representation dated 5.1.2009 (Annexure P-4) regarding grant of interest on the same but the same has not been considered.

¶16

Reply has already been filed on behalf of respondent No.3, wherein it stands mentioned that the withheld gratuity amount of Rs.82,881/- has since been released to the petitioner vide letter No. Pen.2/R-266/200203/GO/436723/HR/239410-12 dated 18.3.2009.

¶17

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

¶18

In his reply, respondent No.1 has submitted that the evidence and arguments have already been completed in the inquiry in the month of December 2008. However, the findings have yet to be given by the Inquiry Officer. Smt. Saroj Siwatch, IAS, Inquiry Officer-cum-State Transport Controller, Haryana, Chandigarh, had proceeded on earned leave for two months from 1.4.2009 to 31.5.2009 and she is due to join her duties on 1.6.2009 and as such the findings in the case would be given after her joining.

¶19

In view of the fact that the withheld gratuity amount of Rs.82,881/has been paid to the petitioner pursuant to order dated 18.3.2009 and that the evidence and the arguments are already over in the inquiry but the report of the Inquiry Officer is awaited on account of the Inquiry Officer proceeding on earned leave, the present petition has been rendered infructuous and, accordingly, disposed of. Rule is discharged.

¶20

C.O.C.P. No. 528 of 2009 -3-

¶21

However, the respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation dated 5.1.2009 (Annexure P-4) made by the petitioner, regarding interest on the delayed payment of the pensionary benefits, within a period of two months from today.

¶22

May 20, 2009 ajay-1

¶23

( T.P.S. MANN ) JUDGE

Raj Kumar Goel v. R.N. Prashar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Goel v. R.N. Prashar and Ors.

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

Pirthvi Singh Vs Vijay Singh

Kulwant Singh Vs Mohinder Singh Chahal and Ors.

Jaskaran Singh and Ors. Vs Megh Raj and Ors.

Guddi Devi Vs Anurag Rastogi and Ors.

Kanak Lata Vs Kesar Singh

Sarita Rani and Others Vs Kessar Singh and Others