Dismissed
Surinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.
Punjab & Haryana HCCWP/16085/2015
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT…
What the court decided
AI extract
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-16085-2015 Date of decision: - 21.08.2019
Surinder Kaur
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present:Mr. Parvez Chugh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Sunint Kaur, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.4 and 5.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL)
Counsel for the petitioner very fairly states that the claim, which is being raised by the petitioner in this writ petition, is squarely covered by a decision rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.14246-2009 titled as ' Surjit Kaur Vs . State of Punjab and others , decided on 20.04.2011 , by which, the claim of the petitioner seeking relief under proviso (c) under Rule 3(1) of the Punjab Municipal Employees Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1994, was rejected.
Keeping in view the above, counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be allowed to withdraw the present writ petition.
Dismissed as withdrawn, as prayed for.
( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI ) August 21, 2019 JUDGE naresh.k
Whether reasoned/speaking? No Whether reportable? No
NARESH KUMAR 2019.08.26 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Surjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and othersReferred¶14
CWP No.14246-2009
Surinder Kaur
State of Punjab
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court