A single-judge oral order dismissing a writ petition by holding that the petitioner is not entitled to pension after having resigned, following the Division Bench decision in LPA No.181 of 2003.
The writ petition is dismissed following the precedent of LPA No.181 of 2003.
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 & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.6272 of 2003 Date of Decision: February 06, 2012
Hamir Singh
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab & others
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
PRESENT: - None for the petitioner.
Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
. . .
Surya Kant, J (Oral)
decision in LPA No.181 of 2003 wherein the issue involved was whether an employee who has rendered resignation from service is entitled to pension or not.
C.W.P. No.6272 of 2003 [2]
dated 7.1.2009 rendered in the above mentioned LPA, has rejected the claim for pension of an employee who has rendered resignation.
(Surya Kant)
February 06, 2012 Judge avin
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging the rejection of pension entitlement for an employee who resigned should be allowed after the Division Bench's decision in a linked case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab & others vs. Mehar SinghFollowed¶3
LPA No.181 of 2003
Hamir Singh
State of Punjab
Surya Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
