Allowed

Kans Raj and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Apr 2010CWP/19694/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab High Court allowed the petition seeking restoration of pension commutation benefits, relying on a Division Bench order. The court held that the issue remains pending before the Supreme Court and the order is subject to the Supreme Court's outcome regarding contempt proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed in terms of the order dated 14.01.2008 in CWP No.2630 of 2008.

Kans Raj and Ors. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

1 –

¶2

CWP No.19694 of 2009.doc

¶3

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CWP No.19694 of 2009 Date of Decision: 09.04.2010

¶6

¶7

Kans Raj and others . . . . Petitioners

¶8

VS.

¶9

State of Punjab and another . . . . . Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶12

¶13

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

¶14

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

Present: Mr. G.S. Bal, Advocate for the petitioners

¶18

Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Addl. AG Punjab

¶19

¶20

SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)

¶21

(1). Having regard to the nature of the order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to call upon the respondents to file any counter-reply at this stage.

¶22

(2). The petitioners are retired employees of the Government of Punjab who are seeking restoration of the benefit of commutation of their pension as it existed before the impugned circular/letter dated 29.07.2003 (Annexure P2) was issued and which has already been set aside by this Court in CWP

¶23

2 –

¶24

CWP No.19694 of 2009.doc

¶25

No.15554 of 2007 (Gian Chand Sharma and others vs. State of Punjab and others) , decided

¶26

on 21.07.2008.

¶27

(3).

¶28

During the course of hearing, counsel for the parties agree that this writ petition be also allowed in terms of decision dated 14.01.2009 passed in

¶29

CWP No.2630 of 2008 (Baldev Singh vs. State

¶30

of Punjab & others) (Annexure P5), the operative part of which read as under:-

¶31

“It has been brought to my notice that the aforesaid judgement is the subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.25856 of 2008, which is still pending and vide interlocutory order dated 07.11.2008, contempt proceedings have been stayed. The issue being covered by the aforesaid Division Bench judgement all these petitions are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement/ratio, referred to above. It is, however, made clear that this order shall remain subject to the outcome of SLP and the petitioner shall be entitled to seek its implementation through contempt or otherwise only on the event, the interlocutory order of staying the contempt proceedings is vacated by Hon’ble Supreme Court at any stage.”

¶32

(4). The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in the above-reproduced terms.

¶33

(5). Ordered accordingly. (6). Dasti .

¶34

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

¶35

09.04.2010

¶36

vishal shonkar

¶37

CWP No.19694 of 2009.doc - 3 –

Kans Raj and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kans Raj and Ors. 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurdev Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Manjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Jai Parkash & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Pritam Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sant Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kulwant Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.