Allowed

Mandeep Singh S/O Sh. Harvinder S. & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Feb 2012CWP/7096/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition seeking regularisation of petitioners' services. The court noted Petitioner No.1's services were already regularised while Petitioner No.2's termination was quashed. Ordered regularisation and monetary benefits for Petitioner No.2 within three months on a continuity basis. Petitioner No.2 had successfully challenged a termination order earlier.

What did the court decide?

Regularisation of Petitioner No.2's services and grant of monetary benefits within three months on a continuity basis.

Mandeep Singh S/O Sh. Harvinder S… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.7096 of 2002 Date of Decision: February 06, 2012

¶3

Mandeep Singh & another

¶4

.....PETITIONER(S)

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

State of Punjab & another

¶7

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶8

. . .

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶10

¶11

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

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

¶15

PRESENT: - Mr. Mukand Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶16

Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

¶17

. . .

¶18

Surya Kant, J (Oral)

¶19

This writ petition filed in the year 2002 seeks quashing of order dated 21.12.2001 whereby the claim of the petitioners for regularisation of their services was rejected.

¶20

It may be noticed here that petitioner No.1 was appointed as Peon on 4.8.1995 and his services were, lateron,

¶21

C.W.P. No.7096 of 2002 [2]

¶22

extended from time to time. Petitioner No.2 was initially appointed as Telephone Operator on 7.3.1996. Her services were also extended from time to time. Petitioner No.1 was thereafter adjusted as Photostat Operator while petitioner No.2 continued to work as Telephone Operator. Their claim was that since two vacant posts of Telephone Operators were available, they be adjusted against those posts on regular basis but the respondents did not regularise services of the petitioners on the plea that no vacant posts were available.

¶23

When this case was taken up for hearing on 29.9.2011, it was pointed out by learned State counsel, on instructions from the departmental officials, that services of petitioner No.1 have already been regularised vide order dated 5.4.2007.

¶24

As regards petitioner No.2, it is pointed out by

¶25

her counsel that her services were terminated vide order dated 3.2.2005 which was successfully challenged by her in Civil Writ Petition No.7855 of 2007. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by this Court on 29.8.2011 and in compliance thereto, petitioner No.2 has re-joined on 23.9.2011.

¶26

In this view of the matter, when termination order of petitioner No.2 has already been set aside by this Court, she shall be deemed to be in continuance service from the very

¶27

C.W.P. No.7096 of 2002 [3]

¶28

inception and is entitled to be considered for regularisation of her services.

¶29

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondents that appropriate order regarding regularisation of services of petitioner No.2, on the assumption that she is in continuance service without any break, be passed within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶30

In order to obviate the hardship of yet another round of litigation, it is further directed that the monetary benefits and other service benefits to which petitioner No.2 is found entitled to in terms of order dated 29.8.2011, passed by this Court in her earlier writ petition, be also granted to her within the aforesaid period.

¶31

Dasti.

¶32

(Surya Kant)

¶33

February 06, 2012 Judge avin

Mandeep Singh S/O Sh. Harvinder S. & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mandeep Singh S/O Sh. Harvinder S. & Ors. 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

Babu Lal Vs D S Garewal

Ashwani Kumar Sharma Vs Dps Nagal & Anr.

Shanti Devi Rawat Vs Dps Nagal & Anrl.

Rawail Singh and Ors. Vs Husan Lal and Ors.

Hamir Singh Vs State of Pb.

Davinder Paul & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.