Dismissed

Ajmer Singh v. Managing Director, Haryana State

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Mar 2013CWP/5418/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in an oral judgment, dismissed a petition seeking retirement extension for a class-III employee. The court relied on a Supreme Court judgment upholding a 58-year retirement age limit, finding no merit in the petitioner's claim for service until age 60.

What did the court decide?

Disallowed extension of service till age 60 years; petition for quashing the retirement notice dismissed.

Ajmer Singh Vs Managing Director… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CWP No.5418 of 1996

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.5418 of 1996 Date of decision: March 25, 2013.

Ajmer Singh

....Petitioner

Versus

Managing Director, Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation and others

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

¶11

Present: None for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Nipun Mittal, Advocate, for respondents.

¶13

¶14

PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (ORAL)

¶15

Present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 30.11.1994 vide which the petitioner has been intimated that he was going to be retired at the age of 58 years. A further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioner in service till 30.11.1996 i.e. upto the age of 60 years.

¶16

This case was adjourned sine die vide order dated 28.05.1996

¶17

CWP No.5418 of 1996

¶18

-2-

¶19

and it was directed to be listed after the decision by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP Nos.9165 to 9169 of 1996.

¶20

As per office report, SLP Nos.9165-9169 of 1996 have been converted into Civil Appeal Nos.12026-30 of 1996 and the same stand disposed of vide judgment dated 17.09.1998.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondents has produced a copy of judgment dated 17.09.1998 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.12026-30 of 1996 titled 'Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation and others vs. Madan Lal Kohli and others, wherein, the retirement age of class-III employees has been upheld as 58 years. The learned counsel also states that the present writ petition is squarely covered by the said judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court.

¶22

None appears on behalf of the petitioner to controvert the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

¶23

In view of law laid down in Civil Appeal No.12026-12030 of 1996, arising out of Special Leave Petition (C ) No.9165-9169 of 1996 decided on 17.09.1998 by the Hon'ble Apex Court, there is no merit in the instant petition.

¶24

The instant petition is dismissed.

¶25

(PARAMJEET SINGH) JUDGE

¶26

March 25, 2013 parveen kumar

Ajmer Singh v. Managing Director, Haryana State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajmer Singh v. Managing Director, Haryana State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Juna @ Jiwan Ram Vs State of Haryana

Jasmail Singh Alias Jassa Vs State of Punjab

Bohar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Mehar Singh Vs Managing Director, Haryana State

Amar Singh Vs Managing Director

P.R. Malhotra Vs Manaing Director Haryana State