Petitioners sought Leave Travel Concession and Pension commutation for aided institution employees, citing parity with government employees. Court ordered respondents to decide attachments within three months without expressing opinion on merits.
Direction to respondents to decide attached representations within three months.
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.
CWP-20375-2019
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-20375-2019 Date of decision: - 12.09.2019
A.S. Malhotra and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: - Mr. K.L. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL)
Counsel for the petitioners prays that the benefit of the Leave Travel Concession as well as the benefit of Commutation of Pension to the employees of the Aided Institutions is not being extended, though, their counterparts working in the Government Institutions have been granted the said benefit.
Counsel for the petitioners argues that once the benefit of same pay has been extended to the employees of the Aided Institutions, as being granted to the employees/retirees of the Government Institutions, the allowances, which the employees/retirees working on the similar posts in the Government Institutions, such as Leave Travel Concession as well as Commutation of Pension should also have been extended to the employees/retirees of the Aided Institutions.
NARESH KUMAR 2019.09.16 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CWP-20375-2019
-2-
Counsel for the petitioners relies upon an order passed by this Court in CWP-7945-1997 titled as ' Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh Vs. State of Haryana' , decided on 09.12.1999. Counsel prays that a direction be issued to the respondents to grant the benefit of Leave Travel Concession and Commutation of Pension to the petitioners, who retired from the Aided Institutions at par with the employees/retirees, who retired from the Government Institutions.
Counsel for the petitioners states that for the relief, which has been claimed in the present writ petition, petitioners had served the respondents with the representations dated 14.08.2011, 19.04.2012, 16.07.2012, 12.05.2017, 16.10.2018, 07.06.2019, which have been attached as Annexure P-11 Collectively and the petitioners will be satisfied, at this stage, in case a time bound direction is issued to the respondents to decide the said representations.
In view of the request made, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the claim being made by the petitioners, the respondents are directed to decide the abovesaid representations, which have been attached collectively as Annexure P-11, by passing a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Present writ petition stands disposed of.
September 12, 2019 naresh.k
( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI ) JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes Whether reportable? No
NARESH KUMAR 2019.09.16 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether respondents should grant Leave Travel Concession and Commutation of Pension to petitioners of Aided Institutions at par with Government Institutions.
Whether representation dated 14.08.2011 and subsequent dates should be decided by respondents within three months.
Whether direction should be passed to grant benefits to employees of Aided Institutions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh Vs. State of HaryanaReferred¶19
Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh Vs. State of Haryana
A.S. Malhotra and others
State of Haryana
another
Harsimran Singh Sethi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
