Ved Parkash appealed against an order upholding a Single Judge's decision to reject his writ petition seeking pension-related benefits. The High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration on merits.
Appeal allowed; matter remanded to the learned Single Judge for consideration afresh on merits in accordance with law.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
L.P.A. No. 1783 of 2010 Date of Decision : March 09, 2011
Ved Parkash
....Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN
Present : Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.
M.M.KUMAR, J.
LPA No. 1783 of 2010 -2-
Patent Bench in L.P.A. No. 49 of 2010. Vide order dated 17.9.2010, the Letters Patent Bench has held that there was no reason why the claim made by the appellant could not be adjudicated upon in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned State counsel also had agreed for such a course of action.
( M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE
( T.P.S. MANN ) March 09, 2011 JUDGE ajay-I
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal challenging the Single Judge's order on merit should be allowed or remanded for fresh consideration
Whether the claim for annual increments and leave encashment can be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ved Parkash
State of Haryana
M.M. Kumar
T.P.S. Mann
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
