Dismissed

Vinod Chander Gupta v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Feb 2011CWP/9285/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge court dismissed the instant writ petition challenging an impugned promotional order as the petitioners and the rival claimant had both retired from service. The creditor para noted that the stay order ensured the petitioner would retain all service benefits of the post held before retirement.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is dismissed as infructuous; the petitioner is entitled to all service and retirement benefits of the post held before retirement.

Vinod Chander Gupta Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CWP No. 9285 of 1991

¶2

¶3

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

Date of decision: February 4,2011

Vinod Chander Gupta

..Petitioner.

Versus

State of Punjab and others

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶11

Present: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajiv Soni, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. R.S.Rawat, AAG,Punjab for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶13

Mr. Ankur Soni, Advocate for respondent No.4.

¶14

Mehinder Singh Sullar , J .(Oral)

¶15

As is evident from the record, that the petitioner, who was a handicapped person, was ultimately promoted on the post of Private Secretary vide order dated 9.12.1988 (Annexure P-7) and likewise B.S. Puri, (respondent No.4) was also promoted as Private Secretary by the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (respondent No.3) (for brevity “respondent-Board”), by means of order dated 12.12.1988 (Annexure P8).

¶16

Aggrieved by the promotional order (Annexure P-7) of the petitioner, respondent No.4 filed the appeal/revision, which was accepted and respondentBoard was directed to promote the petitioner, with effect from 18.4.1991 by the Special Secretary to Government, Punjab (respondent No.2), by virtue of impugned order dated 27.5.1991 (Annexure P-12) .

¶17

The petitioner did not feel satisfied and filed the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned order (Annexure P-12), invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶18

CWP No. 9285 of 1991

¶19

¶20

The writ petition was admitted and the operation of the impugned order (Annexure P-12) was stayed by a Division Bench of this Court, by way of order dated 20.6.1991. Consequently, the petitioner and respondent No.4 were (subsequently) further promoted and they continued working as such on their respective promotional posts and retired from service.

¶21

What is not disputed here is that the petitioner has already retired from service on 31.8.2005, sequally, respondent No.4 has also retired, after attaining the ages of superannuation. In that eventuality, as the question of any date of promotion/inter se promotion between them did not arise at all, therefore, the instant writ petition has become infructuous in the obtaining circumstances of the case, which is hereby dismissed as such, as urged on behalf of learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

Needless to mention, since the operation of the impugned order (Annexure P-12) was stayed by the Division Bench of this Court, therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to all service and retiral benefits of the post, he has held before his retirement.

Vinod Chander Gupta v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Chander Gupta v. State of Punjab & 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

Balbir Singh Vs Amar Kaur & Ors.

Jai Pal Vs State of Haryana

Executive Engg. Hseb & Ors. Vs Polc Hissar & Anr.

Karnail Singh Sidhu Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurbanta Singh Vs Financial Commissioner & Secr.to Govt. etc. & Ors.

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