Allowed

Arjun Singh and Ors. v. P S E B and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Feb 2012CWP/10582/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition concerning the non-payment of commuted pension to retired employees of the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board, applying a prior order dated 30.03.2009 which conditioned the relief on subsequent Supreme Court proceedings regarding contempt and stays.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed in terms of the order dated 30.03.2009, subject to the outcome of pending Supreme Court proceedings.

Arjun Singh and Ors. Vs P S E B and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

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

¶2

C.W.P. No. 10582 of 2011. [O&M] Date of Decision: 25^th February, 2011.

¶3

Arjun Singh & Ors.

¶4

Petitioners through Mr. Anuj Kohli, Advocate

¶5

Versus

¶6

P.S.E.B. & Ors. Respondents through Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶9

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

¶10

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶11

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

¶12

SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL]

¶13

The petitioners have retired from different posts in the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board [now Punjab State Power Corporation Limited], on attaining the age of superannuation. They are aggrieved against the non-payment of 'commuted pension' as was admissible prior to the issuance of the impugned Circular dated 29.07.2003 [Annexure P-6] which has since been struck down by this Court in CWP No. 15554 of 2007 [Gian Chand Sharma and others v State of Punjab & Ors.] decided on 21.07.2008 [Annexure P-1].

¶14

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that this writ petition may also be allowed in terms of the order dated 30.03.2009 passed by this Court in CWP No. 7446 of 2008 [Sohan Singh v State of Punjab & Ors.] , the operative part of which reads as under:-

¶15

“It has been brought to my notice that the aforesaid judgment is the subject matter of challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 25856 of 2008, which

¶16

is still pending and vide interlocutory order dated 7.11.2008, contempt proceedings have been stayed. The issue being covered by the aforesaid Division Bench judgment all these petitions are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment/ratio, referred to above. It is, however, made clear that this order shall remain subject to the outcome of SLP and the petitioner shall be entitled to seek its implementation through contempt or otherwise only on the event, the interlocutory order of staying the contempt proceedings is vacated by Hon'ble Supreme Court at any stage”.

¶17

This writ petition accordingly stands allowed in the above

¶18

reproduced terms.

¶19

Dasti . February 25, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE

Arjun Singh and Ors. v. P S E B and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Singh and Ors. v. P S E B and Anr.

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

Amar Singh Vs S.N. Singla

Kelo Vs Vijeyander Kumar and Anr.

Mithu Ram and Ors. Vs Vijeyander Kumar and Anr.

Ram Sharan Vs R L Bhatia and Ors.

Pawan Kumar Vs Punjab State Cooperative Supply & Mkt. Fed & Anr.

Swaran Kumar Gupta Vs State of Punjab and Ors.