Disposed

Rinku Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC30 May 2013CWP/11009/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge oral order disposed of Civil Misc.No.8778 and Civil Writ Petition No.11009. The court granted liberty to petitioners to file a detailed representation under the 1993 Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme. The State is directed to decide within three months, passing a reasoned order if claims are rejected.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file detailed representation within six weeks, pending decision by respondents within three months.

Rinku Kumar and Ors. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Civil Misc.No.8778 of 2013 & { 1 } Civil Writ Petition No.11009 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Date of Decision: May 30, 2013

¶4

Rinku Kumar & others

¶5

...Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab & others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

¶10

Present: Mr.Munish Puri, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶11

¶12

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.(ORAL)

¶13

Civil Misc.No.8778 of 2013

¶14

Annexure P-11 taken on record.

¶15

CM stands disposed of.

¶16

Civil Writ Petition No.11009 of 2013

¶17

Prayer in this writ petition is for grant of appointment to the petitioners in the light of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme dated 18.11.1993 (Annexure P-1).

¶18

It has been asserted that the claim of the petitioners is covered in their favour by the judgment passed by this Court in Civil

¶19

Writ Petition No.787 of 2008 (Dharam Singh Versus State of

¶20

Punjab & others), decided on 26.11.2009 (Annexure P-6), which has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court and thereafter by the

¶21

Civil Misc.No.8778 of 2013 & { 2 } Civil Writ Petition No.11009 of 2013

¶22

Supreme Court of India.

¶23

The petitioners asserting their claim, have already served a legal notice through a counsel dated 15.02.2013 (Annexure P-10) upon the respondents, but no response thereto has been received till date.

¶24

Counsel further states that liberty may be granted to the petitioners to file a detailed representation to the respondents within a period of six weeks from today, which may be directed to be considered and decided by the respondents within some specified time.

¶25

In view of the statement made by the counsel for the petitioners and without going into the merit of the case or commenting thereon, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file a detailed representation to the respondents within a period of six weeks from today. If such a representation is filed within the stipulated period, the same shall be considered and decided by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶26

In case the claim of the petitioners is not to be accepted, then a well reasoned and speaking order be passed and conveyed to the petitioners forthwith.

¶27

May 30, 2013 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) ramesh JUDGE

Rinku Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinku Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

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

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Hans Raj Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Jatinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gurinderjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

Angrej Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Amarjit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.