Allowed

Milap Chand v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Feb 2010CWP/2215/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a Haryana Roadways conductor dismissed for conviction and later reinstated after acquittal, sought regularization of the intervening period. The Court allowed the petition, directing authorities to grant similar benefit to the petitioner as was wrongly initially granted to a co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to grant similar benefit to the petitioner as granted to co-accused Ranjit Singh within three months and revise pensionary benefits.

Milap Chand Vs State of Haryana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP. No. 2215 of 1992 Date of Decision: 8.2.2010.

Milap Chand

--Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others --Respondents

¶7

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI.

¶8

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

¶9

¶10

PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL)

¶11

The petitioner was serving as a Conductor in the Haryana Roadways in the year 1976. He was involved in a criminal case under Section 409 IPC and was convicted vide judgement dated 11.12.1985. Based upon his conviction, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 9.6.1988. Petitioner preferred an appeal against his conviction and he was acquitted of the criminal charge by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide judgement dated 17.7.1990. The petitioner was, thereafter, reinstated to service and he resumed his duties w.e.f. 20.8.1990. The grievance of the petitioner is that the intervening period i.e from the date of dismissal and rejoining/reinstatement has not been regularized. It is further stated that another co-accused namely Ranjit Singh, who was also terminated along with the petitioner has been granted the benefit of intervening period.

¶12

In the reply filed by respondents no.1 to 3, it is admitted in para 7 that Ranjit Singh was wrongly granted the benefit of the intervening period by the Transport Commissioner.

¶13

CWP. No. 2215 of 1992 -2-

¶14

However, there is nothing on record to indicate that the benefit granted wrongly to Ranjit Singh has been withdrawn. In any case once the petitioner was reinstated, it was obligatory upon the respondents to have decided about the period when the petitioner remained out of service. That has not been done. The co-accused has already been granted the benefit.

¶15

In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to grant similar benefit to the petitioner as was granted to Ranjit Singh, co-accused. Let the appropriate order be passed within a period of three months and the pensionary benefits be also revised accordingly.

¶16

(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE

¶17

8.2.2010. lucky

Milap Chand v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Milap Chand v. State of Haryana

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

Vijay Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Dalbir Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Pale Ram and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Nachhattar Singh Anr. Vs Kashmira Ram

(O&M) the Punjab State Coop Supply Vs M/S Satish Kumar Contractor Pvt. Ltd.

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