Allowed

Mangat Ram v. State of Hry. and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Feb 2010CWP/14442/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed the writ petitions seeking the petitioner, a retired State of Haryana employee with past army service, benefit of that service for pension. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit upon depositing the army gratuity within four weeks, finding refusal based on non-deposit at initial appointment unjustified.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner entitled to benefit of military service if he deposits the required gratuity within four weeks.

Mangat Ram Vs State of Hry. and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

C.M. Nos. 1312-13 of 2010 & CWP. No. 14442 of 2006 Date of Decision: 11.2.2010.

Mangat Ram

--Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI.

¶7

--Respondents

¶8

Present:Mr. R.S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

¶9

¶10

PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL)

¶11

Applications are allowed.

¶12

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties main case is

¶13

taken on board for final disposal.

¶14

CWP No. 14442 of 2006

¶15

The petitioner served in the Army as a Driver w.e.f. 16.2.1963 to 1974. On being discharged from the Army, he joined the service in the State of Haryana in the Department of P.W.D. (B&R) in the year 1977, wherefrom he retired in the year 2001. The petitioner is claiming the benefit of the army service for retiral benefits.

¶16

In the reply filed, it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the military service towards the pension as the petitioner has not deposited the gratuity in terms of Rule 4.3 of of the C.S.R. Vol.II. It is, however, admitted that the petitioner was granted the benefit of additional increment on the basis of army service.

¶17

CWP. No. 14442 of 2006

¶18

-2-

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the gratuity etc. as required under the aforesaid rule with the respondents.

¶20

The issue is also covered by a Division Bench judgement of this Court dated 1.7.2008 passed in CWP No. 3029 of 2007, wherein following observations have been made:-

¶21

“ Only ground to decline relief to the petitioner is that he had failed to deposit the amount of gratuity etc., received from the army authorities, with the respondents at the time of his initial appointment. We feel that the stand taken is absolutely unjustified. Right to get benefit of military service accrued to the petitioner when amendment was effected in Rule 4 of the Rules on 14.6.1999 i.e much after the date of initial appointment of the petitioner. Vide order Annexure P-4 dated 17.3.2004, it has rightly been held that the petitioner was entitled to get benefit of military service to his credit as per the amendment effected by the State of Haryana in Rule 4 of the Rules on 14.6.1999. In a very arbitrary manner, thereafter, his claim was declined by passing order under challenge (P-9). We feel that the reason given in the impugned order, to deny relief to the petitioner, is not correct.”

¶22

Since the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the amount of gratuity etc., received from the army in terms of Rule 4.3, the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of the military service on deposit of the aforesaid amount within a period of four week.

¶23

Petition disposed of accordingly.

¶24

(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE

¶25

11.2.2010. lucky

Mangat Ram v. State of Hry. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangat Ram v. State of Hry. 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

Ram Roop & Anr. Vs the Director General of Police Haryana Dgp Office Chd & Ors.

V.K Khanna Vs State of Haryana

Jai Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ram Sarup Vs State of Haryana etc.

Shashi Kant Sharma & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Om Parkash Vs State of Haryana and Others