Disposed

Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Oct 2016CWP/21639/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This notice motion case involves a petitioner challenging a notification restricting benefits for ex-servicemen served during the second emergency. The court directed the State to consider the claim in light of a prior Division Bench judgment and release benefits within four months if entitled.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the subject claim in light of cited judgment and release benefits within four months if entitled.

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

¶1

CWP-21639-2016 (O&M) - 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP-21639-2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 19, 2016

Amarjit Singh

.....Petitioner

Versus

The State of Punjab and others

¶8

......Respondents

¶9

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

¶10

1. Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable ? Yes/No

¶11

3. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 4. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No 5. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No.

¶12

.......

¶13

Present: Mr.R.K.Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶14

SURYA KANT, J.

¶15

Notice of motion.

¶16

On our asking, Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶17

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.

¶18

In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, it is not

¶19

necessary to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage.

¶20

The petitioner has laid challenge to the notification dated

¶21

10.04.2012 whereby admissibility of the benefits to the ex-serviceman who

¶22

Meenu 2016.10.27 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

¶23

- 2 -

¶24

CWP-21639-2016 (O&M)

¶25

served in the active military service during second emergency was 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).

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

Ordered accordingly.

¶29

Dasti. ( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE October 19, 2016 ( SUDIP AHLUWALIA ) meenuss JUDGE

¶30

Meenu 2016.10.27 09:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab and 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

Surat Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Mangal Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sat Pal and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Gurdial Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sewa Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Baldev Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.