Disposed

Sukhwinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Oct 2016CWP/19962/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This constitutional petition sought a writ of mandamus directing the State of Punjab to grant pensionary benefits by counting the entire daily wage service rendered by petitioners before regularization, relying on a prior Division Bench judgment.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.3 to decide the legal notice within three months; granting relief if petitioners are entitled, or passing a speaking order if not.

Sukhwinder Singh & Ors. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP No.19962 of 2016 Date of decision: 07.10.2016

¶3

Sukhwinder Singh and others

¶4

..Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab and others

¶7

..Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

¶9

Present: Mr. P.K. Goklaney, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

¶11

Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)

¶12

This petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to count the entire daily wage service of the petitioners rendered by them before regularization for pensionary benefits as similarly situated employees have been granted benefits by relying upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court rendered in CWP No.2371 of 2010 titled as Harbans Lal vs. The State of Punjab and others , decided on 31.08.2010 .

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said judgment has attained finality as SLP and the review filed by State have also been dismissed. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioners served a legal notice (Annexure P-12) upon the respondent authorities but no action has been taken thereupon so far.

¶14

Notice of motion.

¶15

Neetu Rani 2016.10.17 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶16

CWP No.19962 of 2016 2

¶17

On the asking of the Court, Mr. R.S. Sidhu, A.A.G., Punjab, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State.

¶18

Keeping in view the limited prayer of the petitioners and also the fact that the matter has already been settled and similarly situated employees have been granted the benefit, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to decide the legal notice dated 03.08.2016 (Annexure P-12) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶19

In case, the petitioners are found to be entitled for the relief claimed in the representation, the same be granted within a period of three months thereafter and in case, any adverse order is to be passed then a speaking order with reasons be passed.

¶20

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶21

07.10.2016 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) neetu JUDGE √ Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No √ Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶22

Neetu Rani 2016.10.17 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Sukhwinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhwinder Singh & Ors. 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

Rashmi Vs Naveen

Amritpal Singh Kingra Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Atam Parkash Setia Vs State of Haryana etc.

M/S Computer Plaza Vs Karnail Singh and Anr.

Satnam Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Nirmal Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.