Dismissed

Tarsem Singh v. Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Feb 2015CWP/3729/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sued for extension of service beyond age of 58 despite pending disciplinary proceedings. Court disposed petition without merits, directing status quo maintained until Central Administrative Tribunal decides interim relief about extension.

What did the court decide?

Status quo regarding retirement maintained till Central Administrative Tribunal decides interim relief.

Tarsem Singh Vs Ut of Chandigarh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CWP No.3729 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.02.2015

¶4

¶5

Tarsem Singh ... Petitioner

¶6

VS.

¶7

UT Chandigarh & Ors. ... Respondents

¶8

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

¶10

¶11

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

¶15

Present: Mr. Karanvir Singh Khehar, Advocate for the petitioner

¶16

¶17

SURYA KANT, J. (Oral)

¶18

(1) The petitioner’s case is that the Punjab Government Notification-cum-Instructions dated 07.01.2015 (Annexure P6) have been duly adopted by the Chandigarh Administration, in terms whereof the petitioner is entitled to seek extension in service beyond the age of 58 years.

¶19

(2) The petitioner is to retire tomorrow i.e. 28.02.2015 on attaining the age of 58 years. The petitioner appears to have not been granted extension on the ground that disciplinary proceedings are pending against him.

¶20

(3) It is pointed out that in identical circumstances, Inspector Anokh Singh and Inspector Kuldip Singh have been granted extension in service vide order (Annexure P7 colly) though disciplinary proceedings are/were pending against them as well.

¶21

V.VISHAL 2015.05.08 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶22

��

¶23

�� ��

¶24

(4) The petitioner has already approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh seeking his continuation in service beyond the age of 58 years as per the extended age of retirement. The Tribunal has issued notice for 05.03.2015. It is obvious that the Tribunal is yet to decide the petitioner’s prayer for interim relief.

¶25

(5) We thus dispose of this writ petition at this stage without expressing any views on merit with a direction that let status quo re: retirement of the petitioner be maintained till 05.03.2015 and/or till the petitioner’s prayer for interim relief is decided by the Tribunal.

¶26

(6) The Tribunal shall decide the petitioner’s prayer for interim relief uninfluenced of the observations made hereinabove, expeditiously and preferably within two weeks .

¶27

(7) Disposed of.

¶28

(8) Let a copy of this order be issued dasti on payment of usual charges.

��

��

�� 

V.VISHAL 2015.05.08 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Tarsem Singh v. Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarsem Singh v. Ut of Chandigarh and 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

Wasan Singh Vs Director Panchayat Pb.

Sube Singhand Ors. Vs Additional Director C/H Haryana Chd & Ors.

Ut of Chandigarh and Ors. Vs Arnun Kumar Kansal

Thomas Gill and Anr. Vs Director Rural Development and Panchayats Punjab and Ors.

Tajinder Pal Singh Vs Director Rural Development & Panchayats & Ors.

Dera Shahi Samadhan Vs State of Punjab and Ors.