Dismissed

Ram Partap v. Haryana Agriculture Marketing Board & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Sept 2015RSA/4193/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a second appeal challenging the denial of pension benefits. The court held that the appellant's resignation letter and voluntary absence from service constituted abandonment, disqualifying him from pension, even without a specific disciplinary order.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed with no substantial question of law for consideration.

Ram Partap Vs Haryana Agriculture… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

RSA No.4193 of 2013 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.4193 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision.03.09.2015

Ram Partap

.......Appellant

Versus

The Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and another

¶9

......Respondents

¶10

Present: Mr. R. Kartikeya, Advocate for Mr. Ram Swaroop, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶12

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

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

¶16

K. KANNAN J. (ORAL)

¶17

Delay of 163 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.

¶18

The second appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff who lost before two Courts below making a claim for pension for having put in more than 16 years in service. He had taken leave for three months some time in the year 1990 and on the completion of the leave period instead of joining, he was reported to have sent a letter of resignation on 29.08.1990. The letter was not immediately acted upon in the sense that the department did not either reject the leave or call upon him to join but as a matter of fact, the plaintiff treated himself as being in service and offered to rejoin in the year 2007. It would appear that the plaintiff was not permitted to rejoin and he filed a suit seeking for a claim to rejoin and for benefits. The suit was allowed to be withdrawn since his age of superannuation had arrived in the normal course if he

¶19

PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.09.07 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

-2-

¶21

RSA No.4193 of 2013 (O&M)

¶22

had continued in service in 2009 and filed a suit only to treat him as a person having served with more than 10 years which was qualifying number of years of service. The plaintiff's argument was that the respondents had not taken any departmental action for his absence and therefore, he must be deemed to be in service or at least he could not be tainted as suffered any disqualification for claiming pension.

¶23

The two Courts have held that even if the department had not taken any disciplinary action, the act of the plaintiff sending letter of resignation and staying away from service from the year 1990 and continuing it till he initiated his own suit in 2008 constituted an abandonment from service and a person who had abandoned the service was disqualified from claiming pension as per the relevant Rules. I find that the two Courts below have taken a correct view in matter that irrespective of the fact that the department did not take action for absence, the plaintiff's own conduct only made possible an inference of abandonment in service and if there was a disqualification on such a ground, it was correctly applied against the plaintiff to deny the benefits.

¶24

I find no substantial question of law for consideration in the

¶25

second appeal and dismiss the same.

¶26

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶27

September 03, 2015 Pankaj*

¶28

PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.09.07 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ram Partap v. Haryana Agriculture Marketing Board & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Partap v. Haryana Agriculture Marketing Board & 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

State of Haryana and Ors. Vs Harmeet Kaur and Ors.

Jagtar Singh Vs Darshan Singh

Gora Singh Vs Punjab Mandi Board and Ors.

Kumari Nisha Devi Vs Home Secretary Home Deptt & Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Vs Mohan Dass and Ors.