Disposed

Anil Kumar Arora v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Apr 2022CWP/10809/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a 25-year-old writ petition seeking selection scale benefits for ad hoc/temporary service. Noting the petitioner's death and lack of impleaded legal representatives, and accepting that benefits were already granted, the Court dismissed the petition with liberty to apply if any cause of action survives.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with liberty to file appropriate application if any cause of action survives.

Anil Kumar Arora Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2022)

¶1

Sr. No.320

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP-10809-1996 Date of decision: 19.04.2022

¶4

Anil Kumar Arora …Petitioner Vs.

¶5

State of Haryana and others …Respondents

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶7

Present: None for the petitioner.

¶8

Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Additional A.G., Haryana. *** ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

¶9

Petitioner herein seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant selection scale of Rs.30004500 on completion of 5 years service by including ad hoc /temporary service followed by regular service.

¶10

Petition was admitted on 25.07.1996.

¶11

When called out for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It seems that by sheer effluxion of time and pendency of the writ petition for more than 25 years before this Court, either it has been rendered infructuous or even otherwise the petitioner seems to have lost interest in pursuing the same.

¶12

During pendency of the writ petition, petitioner is stated to have died on 20.10.2001 as per death certificate appended with the return filed to the writ petition. No attempts till date have been made to implead the legal representatives of petitioner. In view thereof, even otherwise it seems to have abated. That apart, it is stated in para 2 of the preliminary objection of the written statement that LRs of deceased petitioner have been given all the death-cum-retiral benefits of petitioner.

¶13

VANDANA 2022.04.24 23:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

In the premise, it is borne out that the LRs having been accepted

¶15

the benefits and yet have chosen not to pursue the present writ petition.

¶16

In any case, it appears that even on merits, claim of the petitioner is not admissible in view of the following stand taken in para 1 and 2 of the reply in preliminary objections, which is reproduced herein for ready reference:

¶17

“1.That the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the prayer for grant of selection scale of Rs.30004500 on completion of five years service by including adhoc/temporary service followed by regular service as per law laid down by Full Bench of this Hon’ble High Court reported as 1995 (4) RSJ, 586. In this regard it is submitted that the aforesaid judgment has been set aside by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case titled as State of Haryana vs. Haryana Veterinary and AHTS Association and another, cited in 200 (2) SCT 664. It is well settled law that the adhoc service – Work charge service cannot be counted for the purpose of selection grade as per law laid down in 2008 (4) RSJ Page 756, in the case titled as Hanumant Singh and others Versus State of Haryana (Annexure-R-1) and similarly as per law laid down in 2011 (3) RSJ Page 699, in case titled as State of Punjab Vs. Surjeet Kaur, (Annexure-R-2) as such the petitioner is not entitled to count the adhoc service/ temporary service for getting the selection grade. Latest judgment on this issue is State of Haryana V/s Sita Ram & Others decided in year 2013 (Annexure R-3).

¶18

2. That the petitioner had died on 20.10.2001. Death certificate (Annexure R-3) is enclosed herewith. The petition has become infructuous and abated as no L.Rs. have been brought on record before the Hon’ble Court. Even the L.Rs. of the deceased/ petitioner have been given all the death cum retiral benefits of the petitioner. ”

¶19

Be that as it may, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to file

¶20

an appropriate application in case, any cause of action still survives.

¶21

19.04.2022 vandana	(ARUN MONGA) JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:	Yes/No
Whether reportable:	Yes/No

¶22

VANDANA 2022.04.24 23:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Anil Kumar Arora v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Arora v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajender Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mohan Lal Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ved Vyas Vs State of Haryana and Others

Shashi Bhushan and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Another

Naveen Kumar Rathee Vs State of Haryana and Another

Rishi Pal Arya and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.