Disposed

Jagdish Chand v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Sept 2013CWP/16250/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a termination and sought treatment of unexplained absence as service. The Court held that absence persisted despite partial adjustment and directed the petitioner to submit a representation for fresh consideration of the claim, reserving the right to initiate disciplinary proceedings within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit a representation for settlement of claim regarding service period 1998-2006; disciplinary proceedings to be initiated within three months if deemed appropriate.

Jagdish Chand Vs State of Haryana… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Raj Kumar Arora 2013.09.09 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶2

CWP-16250-2013 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP-16250-2013 (O&M). Decided on: September 4, 2013.

Jagdish Chand

..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶9

..... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI

¶11

PRESENT Mr.S.N.Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Petitioner was dismissed in the year 1995 as Chowkidar and he challenged the termination order. Vide order dated 5.4.2013, the Chief Administrator respondent No.2 has ordered that the period from 1995 to 1998 should be treated as satisfactory service for the purpose of ACP scale and pensionary benefits.

¶14

Grievance of the petitioner is that he has been held to be absent from duty from 1998 to 2006 without holding any departmental enquiry.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner claims that the petitioner having been reinstated pursuant to order dated 5.4.2013, and his absence period from 1995 to 1998 having been treated as satisfactory service, his service from 1998 to 2006 has been ignored. There is neither any departmental enquiry nor any order passed

¶16

¶17

Raj Kumar Arora 2013.09.09 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CWP-16250-2013 (O&M)

¶19

regarding his service during the period from 1998 to 2006,

¶20

A perusal of the order dated 5.4.2013, indicates that the claim of the petitioner has been considered for the period from 1998 to 2006 and it has been treated to be a period of absence.

¶21

Counsel for the petitioner has also not been able to satisfy this Court as to how the petitioner can be treated to be in service during the period from 1998 to 2006 for which he has been held to be absent.

¶22

This petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner may submit a representation to the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Haryana, Sector 6, Panchkula, for settlement of his claim for the period from 1998 to 2006. The claim of the petitioner that he deserved to be treated on duty during the period from 1998 to 2006, will be taken into consideration and decision will be taken as to how the said period has to be treated for the grant of any service benefits. In case it is deemed appropriate that disciplinary proceedings should be taken, a specific order in this context will be passed within a period of three months after the receipt of representation.

¶23

(M.M.S. BEDI)

¶24

September 4, 2013. rka

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

Jagdish Chand v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Chand 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

Punjab Government Driver Technical Employees Union Vs D.P. Reddy

Raj Kumar Gupta Vs Ashok Gupta and Ors.

Gaurav Gupta Vs Ashok Gupta and Ors.

Charanjit Singh Vs Iqbal Singh Sandhu and Anr.

Wazir Singh & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Vas Dev Vs H.V.P.N.L. and Ors.