Disposed

Tej Ram v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Nov 2015CWP/23266/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a CWP seeking direction to grant pension benefits, proficiency step-up, and interest on delayed dues. The Court issued a stay-like direction to the specific respondent to decide a representation within three months and pay due amounts within two months thereafter if applicable.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 3 to consider the petitioner's representation and decide within 3 months; payment of dues within 2 months thereafter.

Tej Ram Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

CWP No. 23266 of 2015

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 23266 of 2015 Date of decision: 02.11.2015

Tej Ram

....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab and others

¶9

...Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA

¶11

Present: Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)

¶13

The petitioner seeks relief of direction to the respondents to grant benefit of ACP scheme on completion of 4, 9 and 14 years of service as per the policy of the State Government dated 25.09.1998 (Annexure P-1) and further amended on 03.11.2006 (Annexure P-2) and for grant of all consequential benefits arising thereto on account of grant of proficiency step up alongwith interest on the delayed payment of retiral dues, as permissible under the Rules.

¶14

It is the case of the petitioner that he has retired as Beldar on 31.05.2012 and his retiral dues were given late and no amount of interest has been given and a recovery of 29,834/- was done by withdrawing special increments, which was to be refunded after the judgment of the Apex Court in **_SLP No. 13027 of 2011, State of Punjab and others vs. Tarlok Chand and others,_** decided on 16.07.2014. The revised leave encashment amounting to 91,970 was also not paid.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner submits that representation dated SHIVANI GUPTA05.12.2014 (Annexure P-3) has been served on respondent no. 3 for the said 2015.11.03 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶16

CWP No. 23266 of 2015

¶17

¶18

relief but no action has been taken on the same. Counsel further submits that he would be satisfied at this stage if a direction is issued to the said respondent to take a decision on the said representation within a time bound frame.

¶19

Keeping in view the limited relief sought and without going into the merits of the case, this Court does not feel it necessary to call upon the respondents to file reply.

¶20

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 3 to take into consideration the representation dated 05.12.2014 (Annexure P-3) and decide the same within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. In case the amounts are found to be due, payment be made within two months thereafter. Needless to say that in case the relief is to be denied, the order should

¶21

contain reasons.

¶22

02.11.2015 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) shivani JUDGE

¶23

SHIVANI GUPTA 2015.11.03 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Tej Ram v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tej Ram v. State of Punjab & 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

Dashmesh Education Society Vs the National Council for Teachers Education and Anr.

Shri Lajja Ram Shiksha Sansthan Vs the National Council for Teachers Education and Anr.

Triveni Shiksha Samiti Vs National Council for Teachers Education and Anr.

Tara Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Punjab & Ors.