Dismissed

Raj Kumar Mittal v. Chairman Cum MD Uco Bank & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Jan 2018CWP/21803/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought pension benefits under a specific circular, claiming they were applicable to his case. The court held that the circular applied only to superannuation and voluntary retirement cases, not compulsory retirement. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of the circular since he was compulsorily retired.

Raj Kumar Mittal Vs Chairman Cum MD… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

CWP No. 21803 OF 2014

¶2

--1--

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 21803 OF 2014 DECIDED ON: JANUARY 16, 2018

RAJ KUMAR MITTAL

.....PETITIONER

VERSUS

CHAIRMAN-CUM-MD, UCO BANK .....RESPONDENTS AND OTHERS

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr. Sunny Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. KPS Dhillon, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶12

¶13

JASPAL SINGH, J (ORAL)

¶14

By virtue of instant petition preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release pension of the petitioner along with consequential benefits and interest particularly in view of circular No. CIR/HR&IR/G2/665/90/2010-11/999 dated 10.08.2010 (Annexure P-2).

¶15

Undisputably, petitioner was compulsorily retired w.e.f. 12.08.2004 in pursuance of order dated 09.08.2004 (R-9) and pensionary benefits have already been granted to him.

¶16

Through, instant petition, petitioner though seeks benefit allegedly accrued to him on the basis of notification dated 10.08.2010 but he is not

¶17

Sonika 2018.01.19 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

CWP No. 21803 OF 2014

¶19

--2--

¶20

entitled thereto as his case/claim does not fall within the purview of the said notification.

¶21

A glance at the aforesaid letter/notification dated 10.08.2010 makes it crystal clear that same is applicable to the employees, who got retired on superannuation, death or under Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Since, petitioner was compulsorily retired, he does not fall within the ambit of any of the aforesaid categories and is not entitled to the benefit granted to other employees through the aforesaid scheme.

¶22

In the light of aforesaid discussion, the instant petition is dismissed.

¶23

JANUARY 16, 2018 (JASPAL SINGH) sonika JUDGE

¶24

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes/No

¶25

Sonika 2018.01.19 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Raj Kumar Mittal v. Chairman Cum MD Uco Bank & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Mittal v. Chairman Cum MD Uco Bank & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harbhajan Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Madan Lal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Santosh Rani Vs Food Corporation & Ors.

Ravi @ Bhola Vs State of Haryana

Des Raj Kataria Vs State of Punjab and Another

Saroj Vs Municipal Corporation Chandigarh and Ors.