Allowed

Tarachand v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Aug 2019CWP/20532/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the pendency of a charge-sheet causing stagnation in pension benefits and sought a time-bound decision. The high court dismissed merits and directed the authorities to decide the pending representation within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to decide the representation dated 19.06.2018 within three months from receipt of certified copy.

Tarachand Vs State of Haryana and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

CWP-20532-2019

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP-20532-2019 Date of decision: - 05.08.2019

Tarachand

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

¶11

Present:None for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL)

¶14

As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet dated 30.06.2016 (Annexure P-1) under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 and thereafter, on 31.07.2016 he retired during the pendency of the charge-sheet.

¶15

The grievance of the petitioner is that despite an expiry of approximately three years of the serving of the charge-sheet dated 30.06.2016 (Annexure P-1), the respondents have not decided the same and the pendency of the said charge-sheet is causing prejudice to the petitioner as his pensionary benefits have been stopped and the prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of the direction to the respondents to decide the charge-sheet dated 30.06.2016 (Annexure P-1) in a time bound manner.

¶16

NARESH KUMAR 2019.08.08 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

CWP-20532-2019

¶18

-2-

¶19

From the pleadings, it transpires that for the relief, which has been sought in the present writ petition, petitioner has submitted a representation dated 19.06.2018 (Annexure P-3), requesting the respondents to decide the said charge-sheet at the earliest.

¶20

Interest of justice will be served, at this stage, in case a time bound direction is issued to the respondents to decide the representation dated 19.06.2018 (Annexure P-3) by passing an appropriate speaking order.

¶21

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the respondents are directed to decide the representation dated 19.06.2018 (Annexure P-3) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶22

It will be appreciable in case the charge-sheet is taken to its logical end at the earliest as the same is already pending for the last three years.

¶23

In view of the above, present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶24

( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI ) August 05, 2019 JUDGE naresh.k

¶25

Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes Whether reportable? No

¶26

NARESH KUMAR 2019.08.08 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Tarachand v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarachand v. State of Haryana and 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

Jagdish Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

Resham Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Jaimal Singh Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Another

Om Parkash Vs State of Haryana and Others

Hawa Singh Dahiya and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Tirath Singh Phogat Vs State of Haryana and Others