Petitioner sought Old Age Allowance/Pension denied by State as petitioner was below 60 years. Court held age dispute inappropriate for writ jurisdiction.
None. Claim for allowance/pension dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1153 of 2011
Raghubir Singh
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. Kuldeep Khandelwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana for the State.
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court for grant of Old Age Allowance/Pension.
In response to notice, the respondents have disclosed that the petitioner is not entitled to Old Age Samman Allowance as it is payable to those, who are aged 60 years or more. It is stated that the petitioner is below the eligible age as per the school record. Accordingly, this allowance/pension cannot be granted to him. Mention is made to the record indicating date of birth of the petitioner's elder brother 54 years. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner has been declined.
Since the disputed question in regard to the age of the petitioner would be involved, it would not be appropriate to determine the facts in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Dismissed.
May 05, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the present dispute regarding the age of the petitioner is appropriately determinable in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Raghubir Singh
State of Haryana
Ranjit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
