Disposed

Surat Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Apr 2013LPA/796/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in this Letters Patent Appeal, declined to interfere with the Single Judge's order dismissing a writ petition for retention in service until the age of 60. The court directed the competent authority to sympathetically consider the appellant's representation regarding retirement benefits and qualifying service within one month.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was not interfered with; the appellant was directed to file a representation to the Competent Authority regarding retirement benefits, which must be decided within one month.

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

¶1

-1-

¶2

LPA No. 796 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

LPA No. 796 of 2013 (O&M)

¶5

Date of decision: 26.4.2013

Dr. Surat Singh

..... Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana and another

¶10

..... Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH

¶12

PRESENT: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with

¶13

Mr. Vijay Dahiya, Advocate for the appellant.

¶14

SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

¶15

Notice of motion.

¶16

Mr. R.D. Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶17

This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 10.4.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the appellant's writ petition for his retention in service till 30.4.2015 and not to retire him on 30.4.2013, has been dismissed in limine.

¶18

Keeping in view the nature of order which we propose to pass, no reply-affidavit is required to be filed on behalf of the respondentState to the writ petition.

¶19

The appellant was working as an Associate Professor in the National Institute of Rural Development, Hyderabad, when he was taken

¶20

LPA No. 796 of 2013 -2-

¶21

as Director, Haryana Institute of Rural Development, Nilokheri on deputation w.e.f. 29.6.2001. While serving as such, the appellant was absorbed in service vide order dated 11/14.1.2005 (Annexure P-2) stipulating the following terms and conditions:-

¶22

“(i) That his seniority in this department will be fixed from the date of absorption.

¶23

(ii) That his absorption will be effective from the date of acceptance of his technical resignation.

¶24

(iii) That his pay and other service conditions will be governed by service rules the Haryana Development and Panchayats Department (Group-A) Rules/1988 applicable to him. However, his pay will be protected which he would be drawing on the date of absorption.

¶25

(iv) That he will not claim any retiral benefits of past service on Haryana Institute of Rural Development.”

¶26

The appellant on the other hand submits that the State Government took a conscious decision on 11.1.2005 for his retention in service till 30.4.2015, i.e. up to the age of 60 years as that was the age of superannuation in his parent institute at Hyderabad.

¶27

Learned Single Judge, however, has turned down the claim of the appellant for his retention in service up to the age of 60 years.

¶28

In view of clause (iii) of the absorption order reproduced above whereunder the service conditions of the appellant are governed by

¶29

-3-

¶30

LPA No. 796 of 2013

¶31

the Haryana Development and Panchayats Department (Group-A) Rules, 1988, we are also not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. However, this does not preclude the appellant to represent the Competent Authority on the basis of the decision said to have been taken earlier by the Competent Authority coupled with other mitigating circumstances like non-receipt of pension, if he is retiring on 30.4.2013. We are quite sanguine that the representation, if any, made by the appellant shall be sympathetically considered by the Competent Authority and/or desirability of counting the service rendered by the appellant on deputation towards 'qualifying service' for the purpose of retiral benefits, shall also be considered alternatively. It shall be appreciated if an appropriate decision on the representation is taken by the Competent Authority within one month from the date of its receipt.

¶32

Let a copy of this order be given dasti to learned State counsel for information and necessary compliance.

¶33

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE April 26, 2013 ( R.P. NAGRATH ) rishu JUDGE

Surat Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surat Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr.

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

Om Parkash & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Manjit Singh Vs State of Punjab etc.

Sarwan Singh Vs Distt.Judge Ropar etc.

Court on Its Own Motion Vs Raman Doomra, Advocate, Jalalabad, (Ferozepur)

Pole Star Star Public School Vs Employees Provident Fund Appellant & Anr.

Beant Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.