Disposed

Pavitra Devi v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Aug 2009CWP/13890/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a conduct money writ petition, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the petition for quashing the rejection of ex-gratia appointment. The Court disposed of the matter with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation for grant of interest on delayed retiral benefits.

What did the court decide?

The petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to respondent No.3 for interest on delayed retiral benefits.

Pavitra Devi Vs State of Haryana… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

C.W.P. No. 13890 of 2007

¶3

DATE OF DECISION : 06.08.2009

¶4

Pavitra Devi

¶5

.... PETITIONER

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana and others

¶8

..... RESPONDENTS

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

Ms. Kirti Singh, AAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1.

¶12

Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 4.

¶13

¶14

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral )

¶15

The petitioner, who is widow of the deceased employee, has filed the instant petition for quashing the order dated 28.2.2007 (Annexure P-3), whereby her request for ex-gratia appointment under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employee Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules of 2003') has been rejected.

¶16

Undisputedly, husband of the petitioner expired on 15.3.1998. Concededly, all his retiral benefits have already been paid to the petitioner,

¶17

CWP No. 13890 of 2007

¶18

-2-

¶19

but it is the case of the petitioner that the same were paid only on 12.2.2005 and no interest on the delayed payment has been paid. So far as the ex-gratia appointment is concerned, it is stated in the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4 that the the petitioner was asked to submit documents for ex-gratia appointment, but when she did not respond, her case was closed and she went to Nepal. It is further stated that after closing the case of the petitioner for ex-gratia appointment, her case cannot be considered in terms of clause 3 of the Rules of 2003.

¶20

Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioner states that let this petition be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation for grant of interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits and the same may be ordered to be decided expeditiously.

¶21

In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to respondent No.3 within a period of month with regard to the payment of interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits of her husband and if any such representation is made within the stipulated period, the same shall be considered and decided by respondent No.3 in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months.

¶22

( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE

¶23

August 06, 2009 ndj

Pavitra Devi v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pavitra Devi v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Aggarwal Vs Hry. Power Generation Corp. Ltd.

Krishan Kumar Verma and Ors. Vs H.S.A.M.B.

Satish Kumar and Ors. Vs Hvpnl and Ors.

Satish Nandal Vs Haryana State Electronics Dev. Corp. Ltd.

Mahesh Chand Vs Dhbvn

Bimla Devi Vs State of Haryana & Ors.