COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.…
Petition by petitioners No. 1 to 5 dismissed as withdrawn; direction to respondent No. 3 to decide legal notice within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No. 10200 of 2009
DATE OF DECISION : 14.07.2009
Sawaran Singh and others
.... PETITIONERS
Versus
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioners.
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral )
The seven petitioners, who were working on different posts and retired from the services of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala, on various dates, as indicated in Annexure P-1, have filed this petition for issuing directions to the respondents to release the amount of gratuity and the Commuted Value of Pension, along with interest.
Undisputedly, claim of petitioners No.1 to 5 is only with regard to the payment of gratuity and the claim of petitioners No.6 and 7 is with regard to the payment of Commuted Value of Pension.
As far as petitioners No.1 to 5 are concerned, they have an alternative remedy under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 read with the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972. In view of this alternative
CWP No. 10200 of 2009
-2-
remedy, counsel for the petitioners states that petitioners No.1 to 5 may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to avail their alternative remedy.
Regarding the claim of petitioners No.6 and 7 for the payment of Commuted Value of Pension, they have served a legal notice dated 14.5.2009, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure P-5. It is the case of petitioners No.6 and 7 that the said legal notice has not been decided so far.
In view of the above, the petition qua petitioners No.1 to 5 is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty, whereas the petition qua petitioners No.6 and 7 is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider and decide the legal notice dated 14.5.2009 (Annexure P-5) in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months.
July 14, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a discretionary period given by the court under Article 226 of the Constitution can be shortened to a fixed time limit of three months.
Whether chemical nature of goods is relevant to quantum of damages.
Whether the framework of State of Rajasthan v. The Union of India, 1977 is applicable to the treatment of petitioners.
Sawaran Singh and others
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
