Disposed

Jagdish Parshad v. Dhbvnl and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Aug 2009CWP/11474/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition wherein the petitioner challenged the exclusion of his pre-regularisation work-charge service from pension calculations. The court directed the respondent to consider and decide the pending legal notice expeditiously within three months without making a substantive final determination on the pension eligibility.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the legal notice dated 12.3.2008 expeditiously, preferably within three months.

Jagdish Parshad Vs Dhbvnl and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

C.W.P. No. 11474 of 2009

¶3

DATE OF DECISION : 03.08.2009

¶4

Jagdish Parshad

¶5

.... PETITIONER

¶6

Versus

¶7

Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others

¶8

..... RESPONDENTS

¶9

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Manoj Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral )

¶13

The petitioner has filed the instant petition for issuing direction to the respondents to count the work-charge service rendered by him, prior to his regularisation, for the purpose of granting him the pensionary benefits.

¶14

It is the case of the petitioner that before the regularisation of his services as as ALM on 7.3.1981, he had worked as T-mate on work charge basis from 1.3.1975 to 6.3.1981. It is further case of the petitioner that on attaining the age of superannuation, he has retired from service on 31.3.2004, as Line Man. The respondents, while calculating the qualifying service of the petitioner for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits, has not taken into consideration the work charge service rendered by him

¶15

CWP No. 11474 of 2009

¶16

-2-

¶17

for the aforesaid period. It is the further case of the petitioner that in this regard, he made representation dated 27.1.2006 (Annexure P-2) to the respondents and the same remained pending for consideration. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the communication dated 1.2.2006 (Annexure P-3), but the matter was not finally decided. Thereupon, the petitioner through his counsel served a legal notice dated 12.3.2008 upon the respondents, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure P-5. It is the case of the petitioner that till date, the respondents have neither considered the legal notice nor have counted the work charge service of the petitioner towards his qualifying service for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits. Counsel states that at this stage, the petitioner will be satisfied, if respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the said legal notice, expeditiously.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid facts, without issuing notice of motion as it will un-necessary delay the matter, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the legal notice dated 12.3.2008 (Annexure P-5) in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months.

¶19

August 03, 2009 ndj

¶20

( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE

Jagdish Parshad v. Dhbvnl and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Parshad v. Dhbvnl 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

Rekha Aggarwal Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Harsimran Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Renu Gupta Vs V.C. Panjab University and Anr.

Rakesh Kumar Bhatia Vs National Ins.Co.Ltd.& Ors.

Jit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Charanjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.