The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a declaration that the petitioner be treated in service till age 60. The court held that the petition is covered by an Apex Court judgment fixing retirement age at 58 years for relevant class of employees.
Writ of certiorari and mandamus were dismissed; the order intimating retirement is upheld.
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.
CWP No.5715 of 1996
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.5715 of 1996 Date of decision: March 25, 2013.
Amar Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
Managing Director, Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Nipun Mittal, Advocate, for respondents.
PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (ORAL)
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 30.06.1994 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 30.06.1996 i.e. upto the age of 60 years.
This case was adjourned sine die vide order dated 28.05.1996 and it was directed to be listed after the decision by the Hon'ble Apex
CWP No.5715 of 1996
-2-
Court in SLP Nos.9165 to 9169 of 1996.
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.
Learned counsel for 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.
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.
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.
The instant petition is dismissed.
(PARAMJEET SINGH) JUDGE
March 25, 2013 parveen kumar
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's writ petition for retirement at the age of 60 years should be allowed in light of the Apex Court judgment upholding retirement at 58 years for class-III employees.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
HARYANA STATE MINOR IRRIGATION TUBEWELL CORPORATION AND OTHERS VS. MADAN LAL KOHLI AND OTHERSAffirmed¶21
Civil Appeal Nos.12026-30 of 1996
1 provisions across 1 enactments
AMAR SINGH
MANAGING DIRECTOR, HARYANA STATE MINOR IRRIGATION AND TUBEWELL CORPORATION
PARAMJEET SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
