Disposed

Surinder Kumar Goel v. Pb. St. Warehousing Corporation

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Feb 2011CWP/13321/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the respondent Corporation to conclude pending enquiries against a retired employee within four months or decide on his retiral dues. The court held that delaying dues due to stalled enquiries is unjustified.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to conclude pending enquiry within four months from receipt of certified copy of this order; petitioner to be paid retiral dues forthwith if outcome is favorable or upon furnishin

Surinder Kumar Goel Vs Pb. St… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CWP No.13321 of 2009 O&M) Date of Decision: 22.02.2011

Surinder Kumar Goel

VS.

Punjab State Warehousing Corp. & Anr.

¶8

¶9

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶10

¶11

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

Present: Mr. VK Jindal, Advocate for the petitioners

¶15

Mr. Harsh Sood, Advocate for the respondents

¶16

¶17

SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

¶18

(1). The petitioner retired from the post of District Manager in the respondent-Corporation on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2004. Instead of releasing his retiral benefits for years, the petitioner was slapped with an order dated 02.03.2009 appointing an enquiry officer to enquire into the allegations that the petitioner while in service had allegedly caused financial loss of Rs.1,12,12,142/- to the Corporation. (2). Vide an order dated 26.10.2010, the respondents were directed to conclude the enquiry proceedings and submit a compliance report.

¶19

2 –

¶20

CWP No.13321 of 2009.doc

¶21

(3). Learned counsel for respondent-Corporation informs that the enquiry has been concluded and the petitioner has been exonerated. He, however, states that some more enquiries are pending against the petitioner, a brief reference of which has been given in the preliminary objection No.1 of the written statement.

¶22

(4). Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner retired more than six years back and is still awaiting for his retiral dues, I am of the considered view that the respondents cannot keep sitting tight over the alleged enquiries especially those which have been adjourned to await decision of certain Court cases filed against the principal defaulters. (5). The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondents to conclude the enquiry, if any, pending against the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and depending upon its outcome, the petitioner’s claim for payment of retiral dues be decided forthwith.

¶23

(6). In case the respondents are unable to decide the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner shall be paid his retiral dues on furnishing adequate security/indemnity bond to the satisfaction of the Authorities.

¶24

(7). Ordered accordingly. Dasti .

¶25

3 –

¶26

CWP No.13321 of 2009.doc

¶27

22.02.2011 (S u r y a K a n t) vishal shonkar Judge

Surinder Kumar Goel v. Pb. St. Warehousing Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surinder Kumar Goel v. Pb. St. Warehousing Corporation

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

Ramesh Vs Krishan and Anr.

Satya Devi Vs P.S.E.B. and Ors.

Rachhpal Singh @ Bali Vs State of Punjab

Rajinder Singh and Ors. Vs Suresh Kumar and Ors.`

Tarsem Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Bhupinder Singh Vs Commissioner and Ors.