Disposed

Kiran Bala v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Sept 2018CWP/24471/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ under Article 226 seeking family pension, gratuity, and other benefits for her husband, relying on prior court decisions regarding qualifying service. Court disposed of petition by directing Deputy Director General of Police to examine grievances within three months without deciding merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.2 to look into petitioner's grievances in representation (P-8) and take a decision within three months.

Kiran Bala Vs State of Punjab and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

CWP No.24471 OF 2018

¶2

--1--

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.24471 OF 2018 DECIDED ON: SEPTEMBER 25, 2018

KIRAN BALA

....PETITIONER..

VS.

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS.

¶9

....RESPONDENTS..

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH

¶11

Present:Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

JASPAL SINGH, J.

¶14

Through instant petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant family pension, gratuity (DCRG), ex-gratia, provident fund along with arrears and interest with regard to services rendered by her husband with police department by counting his entire daily wage service rendered prior to his regularization as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary/retiral benefits. And further the husband of the petitioner be held entitled to receive pensionary benefits as per the old GPF Scheme which was applicable to employees recruited in Punjab Government Service prior to 01.01.2014, the case being squarely covered by the decisiond ated 31.08.2010 passed by this Court in CWP No.2371 of 2010.

¶15

At the very outset of the arguments, learned counsel for the

¶16

SONIKA 2018.09.27 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

CWP No.24471 OF 2018

¶18

--2--

¶19

petitioner submits that petitioner moved representation dated 15.10.2017 (P-8) but till date neither any response has been received nor any conscious decision has been taken by the respondents. He further submits that petitioner feels satisfied in case direction is issued to respondents to decide aforesaid representation (P-8), in a time bound manner.

¶20

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, instant petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2-Director General of Police, Punjab Mini Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh to look into the grievances unfolded by the petitioner in representation (P-8) and to take a conscious decision, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 4. However, if petitioner still feels aggrieved by any of the orders passed by the concerned authority, she shall be at liberty to have recourse to other remedies available under law including to approach this Court.

¶21

SEPTEMBER 25, 2018 (JASPAL SINGH) sonika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶22

SONIKA 2018.09.27 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Kiran Bala v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran Bala 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kusum and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Prem Chand Vs State of Haryana & Others

Hawa Singh Hooda Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Amar Singh Vs Haryana Vidut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. & Anr.

Rohtash Kumar Bansal & Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Hardial Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.