Remanded

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

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Feb 2011CWP/4828/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought regularization of adhoc services since 1982 and quashing of 1996 regularization order. Respondent had taken 1984 policy decision. Court directed respondent to consider claim under 1984 policy/subsequent circulars within four months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider claim for regularization of services under 1984 policy and grant further orders if entitled within four months.

Satya Devi Vs P.S.E.B. and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

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

¶2

C.W.P. No. 4828 of 2004 . [O&M] Date of Decision: 21^st February, 2011 .

¶3

Satya Devi

¶4

Petitioner through Mr. S.B.Kaushik, Advocate

¶5

Versus

¶6

P.S.E.B. & others Respondents through Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶9

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?

¶10

SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL]

¶11

The petitioner seeks a Mandamus to direct the respondents to regularize her services w.e.f. 15.07.1982 when she was initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk. She also seeks quashing of the order dated 1.02.1996 [Annexure P-10] rejecting her claim to the afore-stated effect.

¶12

The facts are not really in dispute. The petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis w.e.f. 15.07.1982 and while she was working to the entire satisfaction of the respondents, there came to be issued a Policy Circular dated 19.05.1984 [Annexure P-1] in terms whereof the services of adhoc employees subject to their fulfillment of the eligibility conditions, were to be regularized. It further appears that the name of the petitioner along with other ad-hoc LDCs was recommended for regularization of the services as per the said policy vide memo dated 29.09.1984 [Annexure P-2] but no final decision was apparently taken. Later on the services of the petitioner were

¶13

regularized w.e.f. 01.02.1996 in terms of the subsequent policy decision. The petitioner has meanwhile retired from service.

¶14

It is stated by learned counsel for the respondents that all the retiral dues of the petitioner have been released. The only question that survives for consideration is as to whether the services of the petitioner are liable to be regularized from the date prior to 01.02.1996 as in that event the length of 'regular service' of the petitioner would increase to further entitle her for additional service benefits like proficiency step -up etc.

¶15

As noticed earlier, the respondents had taken a policy decision in the year 1984 to regularize the services of adhoc employees. It is also apparent that the petitioner's case was recommended for the same but no decision was taken. It would, therefore, be expedient to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider her claim for regularization of her services in terms of the policy circular dated 19.05.1984 [Annexure P-1] and/or any subsequent circular issued for regularization of the services of the ad-hoc employees. Needless to say that if the petitioner is found entitled to regularization of her services from a date prior to 01.02.1996, necessary orders to that effect shall be passed and consequential service benefits, if any, shall also be granted to her. The needful shall be done within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received.

¶16

Disposed of. Dasti .

¶17

February 21, 2011. dinesh

¶18

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Surinder Singh Vs Punjab State Warehousing Corpn.

Anu Sharma Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

M/S Jai Mata Foods Ltd. Vs Market Committee, Sangrur Andanr.

Ramesh Vs Krishan and Anr.

Rachhpal Singh @ Bali Vs State of Punjab

Darshan Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.