Disposed

Piyara Lal v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Apr 2010CWP/10296/1990

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition where the petitioner sought appointment as a Conductor after being appointed as a Clerk following a cadre change. The court held that service rendered as Conductor counts toward qualifying service for pension despite not affecting seniority.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition was disposed of as the relief sought was rendered infructuous.

Piyara Lal Vs State of Punjab and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.10296 of 1990 Date of Decision : April 26, 2010.

Piara Lal

..... Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab and others

¶7

..... Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶9

Present : Mr.Vikas Chatrath, Advocate and

¶10

Mr.Sunny Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

¶11

-.-

¶12

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

(Oral) Surya Kant, J.

¶16

In this Civil Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to appoint him as a Conductor in Punjab Roadways from the date when the persons lower in merit were allegedly appointed. The aforesaid relief has been sought by the petitioner on the plea that he was declared successful by respondent No.3 in the selection process and was placed at Sr.No.9 in the allocation list but later on the appointment letters were issued on pick and choose basis.

¶17

The respondents have filed an additional affidavit dated 21.4.2010, inter-alia pointing out that the petitioner was appointed as Conductor and thereafter he requested for change of cadre from Conductor

¶18

C.W.P.No .10296 of 1990 2

¶19

to Clerk and his request having been acceded to, he was appointed as Clerk w.e.f. 30.4.1998 (Annexure R-6). The petitioner is statedly working as Clerk since then.

¶20

Having been adjusted against the post of Clerk, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner that his services as Conductor shall not be counted towards retiral benefits, is totally mis-placed for the reason that the Government service rendered by the petitioner as a Conductor, though cannot be counted towards seniority etc., but it has to be counted towards `qualifying service' for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits.

¶21

In this view of the matter, the writ petition having been rendered infructuous, is disposed of accordingly.

¶22

April 26, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE

Piyara Lal v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Piyara Lal v. State of Punjab 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

Jagjivan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Bhag Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Krishana Devi and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jaswinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Prem Nath Vs the State of Punjab and Anr.

Rupinderjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.