Partly allowed

Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Aug 2011CWP/15329/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought extraordinary leave for a specific period for pension calculation. Court held that since the employment relationship ended, leave was inadmissible, but prior and subsequent work-charge services must count for pension based on precedent.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be treated on leave for a specified period and work-charge services counted for pension.

Ajit Singh Vs State of Punjab and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

C.WP No. 15329 of 2010 . [O&M] Date of Decision: 9^th August, 2011 .

¶3

Ajit Singh

¶4

Petitioner through Mr. Sushil Saini, Advocate

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mr. B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶8

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶9

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶10

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

¶11

SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL]

¶12

The petitioner seeks a Mandamus to treat him on extraordinary leave for the period from 03.09.1980 to 22.03.1985.

¶13

The undisputed facts are that the petitioner served as a Supervisor on work-charge basis at Ranjit Sagar Dam from 1973 till 03.09.1980 when his services were dispensed with. The petitioner was again appointed as a Supervisor on work-charge basis w.e.f. 23.03.1985 and his services were subsequently regularized. The petitioner has thereafter retired from service from the post of Junior Engineer.

¶14

The respondents have opposed the petitioner's prayer explaining that since he was out of service during the afore-stated period, no leave whatsoever is admissible to him.

¶15

I find substance in the plea taken on behalf of the respondents inasmuch as the petitioner could be treated on leave of the kind due provided that the relationship of master and servant subsisted during the said period. Since the petitioner was out of

¶16

service and the order dated 03.09.1980 dispensing with his services is not under challenge in these proceedings, the desired relief can not be granted. However, the work-charge service rendered by the petitioner from 1973 till 03.09.1980 as well as w.e.f. 31.03.1985 till regularization of his services, has to be counted towards pension and other retiral dues in view of the Full Court decision of this Court in Kesar Chand v State of Punjab, 1998[2] PLR, 223. The objection raised on behalf of the respondents that there is a gap of more than one year between the first and second service and as such the second service can not be counted towards pensionary benefits is also liable to be rejected for the reasons already assigned by this Court in Bhunda Ram v UHBVNL & Ors., CWP No. 17805 of 2009 dated 25.02.2010.

¶17

The writ petition is allowed in part to the extent, referred

¶18

to above.

¶19

Disposed of. Dasti .

¶20

August 09, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE

Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab and 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

Sukhdeep Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Reetika & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Manpreet Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gurmail Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab etc.

Jagtar Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Raj Kumar Vs State of Punjab & Ors.