Petitioner sought mandamus for counting work-charged service for retirement benefits. Court found that consequential arrears were released but interest on delayed payment was justified.
Petitioner to be paid interest @ 7% per annum on payments received after 31.03.2005 till actual realization.
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.
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.17263 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.07.2011
Suraj Paul
VS.
State of Punjab & Ors.
. . . . Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. VK Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG Punjab
SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)
CWP No.17263 of 2010.doc
reason that the Full Bench of this Court way back in Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab, 1988(2) PLR 223
(FB) had directed the counting of work-charged service towards ‘qualifying service’ for the purpose of retiral benefits.
(7). Ordered accordingly. Dasti .
04.07.2011
vishal shonkar
(S u r y a K a n t) Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on delayed payment of consequential arrears for work-charged service counted.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kesar Chand vs. State of PunjabReferred¶27
Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab, 1988(2) PLR 223
Suraj Paul
State of Punjab
Surya Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
