In this writ petition concerning service period adjustment for monetary benefits, the single judge found the case squarely covered by a previous decision (CWP No.19638 of 2008) and allowed the instant petition in identical terms.
The instant petition is allowed in the same terms as observed in CWP No.19638 of 2008.
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.
CWP No. 12294 of 2010(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 12294 of 2010(O&M) Decided on : 18-01-2011
Partap Singh and others
....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:Mr. A.K.Rathee, Advocate for petitioners Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana
MAHESH GROVER, J
The petitioners were the erstwhile employees of Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation (HSMITC) which was wound up rendering the services of the employees as surplus.
As per the policy of the State Government, such employees were absorbed/adjusted in other employments. The grievance of the petitioners is that the period of service rendered by them in the HSMITC be counted for the purposes of granting monetary benefits etc. He has referred to the decision rendered by this Court in CWP No.19638 of 2008 decided on 14.1.2010 and attached alongwith petition as Annexure P-3 to enhance his case.
On notice of motion having been issued, reply has been filed and to a pointed query by this Court as to whether the matter is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in CWP No.19638 of 2008
CWP No. 12294 of 2010(O&M) 2
decided on 14.1.2010 (Annexure P-3), learned counsel for the State could not effectively distinguish the case of the present petitioners from the ones who were the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the decision of this Court rendered in CWP No.19638 of 2008 decided on 14.1.2010 (Annexure P-3). Hence, the instant petition is allowed in the same terms as observed in CWP No.19638 of 2008 decided on 14.1.2010 (Annexure P-3).
January 18, 2011 rekha
(Mahesh Grover) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the service period of erstwhile HSMITC employees absorbed in other employments should be counted for granting monetary benefits.
Whether the instant petition is covered by the decision in CWP No.19638 of 2008.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
CWP No.19638 of 2008 decided on 14.1.2010Referred¶13
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Partap Singh and others
State of Haryana and others
Mahesh Grover
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
