Disposed

Satnam Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Sept 2016CWP/18520/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court, without expressing views on merits, disposed of a writ petition challenging a notification restricting benefits for ex-servicemen. It directed the respondents to consider the claim in light of a cited Division Bench judgment and release due benefits within four months if the petitioner is found entitled.

What did the court decide?

Direted respondents to consider the claim in light of the cited judgment and release due benefits within four months if petitioner is found entitled.

Satnam Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.18520 of 2016. Date of Decision: September 07, 2016

¶3

Satnam Singh ......Petitioner

¶4

versus

¶5

The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents

¶6

**CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA. *****

¶7

Present: Mr.R.K.Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional AG, Punjab.

¶8

-.-

¶9

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

¶10

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶11

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

¶13

Surya Kant, J . (Oral)

¶14

Notice of motion.

¶15

On our asking, Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶16

Let four copies of the writ petition be supplied to learned State counsel during the course of day failing which this order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶17

In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, it is not necessary to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage.

¶18

The petitioner has laid challenge to the notification dated 10.04.2012 whereby admissibility of the benefits to the ex-serviceman who Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.09.16 11:32 served in the active military service during second emergency was I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

CWP No.18520 of 2016

¶20

[2]

¶21

restricted. It is claimed that the petitioner is entitled to arrears of benefits in the light of a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 13.11.2014 rendered in a bunch of writ petitions including CWP No.17661 of 2013 (Rajinder Singh versus State of Punjab and others) (P-6).

¶22

The petitioner has raised the above-stated issue vide a legal notice dated 11.09.2015 (P-4).

¶23

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the nature of relief sought, however without expressing any views on merits, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the subject-claim in the light of the above-cited judgment of this Court and if found entitled to, release the due benefits to petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

¶24

Ordered accordingly.

¶25

Dasti.

¶26

	[SURYA KANT] JUDGE
September 07, 2016 mohinder	[SUDIP AHLUWALIA] JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
Whether Reportable	: Yes/No

¶27

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.09.16 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Satnam Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satnam Singh 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

Surinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Mohd. Jamil Brar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Umed Singh Vs Union of India and or.

Maninder Singh Aulakh @ Bittoo Aulakh Vs Gurnam Singh

Satwant Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Vidya Devi Vs State of Haryana & Ors.