Disposed

Jagmal Singh v. State of Haryana & Others

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Dec 2017CWP/29292/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In CWP No. 29292 of 2017, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, by an oral order, directed the State of Haryana to review the petitioner's grievance regarding revised pension. The court mandated a decision within three months considering specific notifications and earlier judgments, with liberty to approach the court again if aggrieved.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to decide the petitioner's grievances regarding revised pension within three months.

Jagmal Singh Vs State of Haryana… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

CWP No. 29292 OF 2017

¶2

--1--

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 29292 OF 2017 DECIDED ON: DECEMBER 20, 2017

JAGMAL SINGH

.....PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

¶9

.....RESPONDENTS

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH

¶11

Present: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

JASPAL SINGH, J (ORAL)

¶14

By virtue of instant petition preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought issuance of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, directing the respondents to grant revised pension in view of 6^th pay and notification of Haryana Government whereby the minimum pension of 50% is to be granted from due date and to pay all consequential relief along with interest.

¶15

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though legal notice dated 01.12.2017 (Annexure P-6) was duly served upon the respondents but till date neither any response has been received nor any decision has been taken. He further submits that petitioner feels satisfied in case direction is issued to respondent(s) to decide aforesaid legal notice, within a stipulated period.

¶16

The instant petition is disposed of with the direction to respondents

¶17

Sonika 2017.12.21 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

--2--

¶19

CWP No. 29292 OF 2017

¶20

No.1 and 2 to look into the grievances unfolded by the petitioner in his legal notice dated 01.12.2017 (Annexure P-6) and to decide the same particularly in the light of notification dated 06.02.2015 (Annexure P-4 & P-5) as well as in view of judgments passed by this Court in CWP No. 19641 of 2009, titled as “R.K. Aggarwal and others v. State of Haryana and others”, decided on 21.12.2012 and CWP No. 3423-2014 , titled as “Parminder Singh Bedi and others v. Union of India and others” decided on 18.12.2015, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶21

However, if the petitioners still feel aggrieved against any of the order(s) passed by the concerned authority, they shall be at liberty to approach this Court.

¶22

DECEMBER 20, 2017 (JASPAL SINGH) sonika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes/No

¶23

Sonika 2017.12.21 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Jagmal Singh v. State of Haryana & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagmal Singh v. State of Haryana & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balkaran Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Budh Ram Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Vijay Constructions Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S Jaswant Rai Verma Vs State of Punjab and Others

The Seed Farm Co. Op L &C Society Vs Punjab Water Resources Management and Development Corporation and Ors.

The Muktsar Kalra Co. Op L & C Society Vs Punjab Water Resources Management and Development Corporation and Ors.