Allowed

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

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Feb 2010CWP/9845/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that legal representatives of a deceased ad hoc teacher are entitled to regularization benefits, family pension, and other service benefits under an existing government policy, having declared similarly situated persons deemed regularized in a related writ petition. The rejection based solely on the deceased not being a writ petitioner was overturned.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to settle family pension and release all service/retiral benefits (gratuity, leave encashment, group insurance) in favour of petitioners within four months.

Shashi Kant Sharma & Ors. Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP. No. 9845 of 1993 Date of Decision: 11.2.2010.

¶3

Shashi Kant Sharma & others

¶4

--Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Haryana and others --Respondents

¶7

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

¶8

Present:Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Surya Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

¶9

¶10

PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL)

¶11

Petitioners are the Legal Representatives of late Smt. Shakuntala Sharma, who was serving in the State of Haryana as a J.B.T. Teacher having been appointed as such on ad hoc basis on 28.12.1981 through Employment Exchange. She died on 4.12.1992 without being regularized. In the year 1997 the State Govt. issued a policy dated 9.3.1987 for regularization of services of the ad hoc employees who had completed 2 years of service up to 1.11.1986. Admittedly, the petitioner's case come within the purview of the aforesaid policy. During her life time, Smt. Shakuntala Sharma had applied for regularization of service. Some of the similarly situated employees also filed writ petition being CWP No. 3769 of 1992 claiming regularization of their services in terms of the aforesaid policy. The said writ petition came to be allowed by this Court vide judgement dated 21.7.1992 and a direction was issued to treat the writ petitioners therein, who were appointed and were possessed of the requisite qualification and covered under the policy, deemed to have been regularized. The petitioners also claimed benefit of the aforesaid

¶12

CWP. No. 9845 of 1993

¶13

-2-

¶14

judgement. However, claim of the petitioners was rejected vide communication dated 23.11.1992 (Annexure P-10) only on the ground that Smt. Shakuntala Sharma was not a writ petitioner. The present petitioners are claiming the benefit of the family pension and release of the gratuity, leave encashment and group insurance etc. of late Smt. Shakuntala Sharma.

¶15

No reply has been filed on behalf of the State-respondents.

¶16

I have perused the judgement dated 21.7.1992. Smt. Shakuntala Sharma is similarly situated as the writ petitioners in the said case. Her claim was not rejected on the ground of any ineligibility but only on the ground that she was not a writ petitioner. Once this Court has declared similarly situated persons, deemed to have been regularized, deceased Shakuntala Sharma was also entitled to the same benefit under the Govt. policy as prevalent at the relevant time. The petitioners are entitled to the family pension and other retiral benefits of late Smt. Shakuntala Sharma as are admissible under the rules.

¶17

This petition is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to the respondents to settle the claim of family pension and release all service/retiral benefits in favour of the petitioners as admissible under rules within a period of four months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the competent authority.

¶18

(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE

¶19

11.2.2010. lucky

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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.

Om Parkash Vs State of Haryana and Others

Mangat Ram Vs State of Hry. and Ors.