Disposed

Bir Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Aug 2012CWP/16419/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this constitutional petition, a reinstated government employee sought regularization of services and consequential benefits. The High Court issued a limited direction, directing the Executive Engineer to consider the employee's representation and pass a reasoned decision within three months, releasing benefits within two months if entitled.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Executive Engineer to consider the petitioner's representation and decide it within three months, and to release benefits if entitled within two further months.

Bir Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP No. 16419 of 2012 Date of Decision : 27.8.2012

Bir Singh

..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶7

..... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

¶9

Present:Mr. Ravi Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)

¶10

Petitioner has approached this Court restricting his claim to the grant of regularization of his services and the consequential benefits, which he contends he is entitled to, in the light of the fact that he has been reinstated in service. Claiming the said benefit, petitioner has submitted a representation dated 19.10.2010 (Annexure-P-5) to the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. II, PWD (B and R), Sonepat-respondent No. 4, which has till date not been decided.

¶11

Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner, at this stage, would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. II, PWD (B and R), Sonepat-respondent No. 4, to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 19.10.2010 (Annexure-P-5), within some specified time.

¶12

Without going into the merits of the case or commenting thereon, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. II, PWD (B and R), Sonepat-respondent

¶13

CWP No. 16419 of 2012

¶14

-2-

¶15

No. 4 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 19.10.2010 (Annexure-P-5), within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The decision, so taken, be conveyed to the petitioner forthwith.

¶16

In case, the petitioner is found entitled to the consequential benefits, the same shall be released to him, in accordance with law, within a further period of two months. If the claim as projected by the petitioner through his aforesaid representation is declined, then a speaking and well reasoned order be passed by respondent No. 4 and the same be conveyed to the petitioner forthwith.

¶17

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE

¶18

27.8.2012 sjks

Bir Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bir Singh v. State of Haryana & 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

Dayal Dass Vs Tate of Hy.

Krishna Pawar etc. Vs Haryana State etc.

Lakha Singh etc. Vs State of Hy.

Ramphal & Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Anu and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Persan Dev Vs State of Haryana & Ors.