Disposed

Maman v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Sept 2022CWP/20345/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought inclusion of daily wage service as qualifying service for pension benefits, relying on Kesar Chand case. The respondent accepted notice and has no objection to addressing the representation. The court directed the respondent to decide the representation within eight weeks via a speaking order and disposed of the petition without expressing a view on mer

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to decide the representation dated 03.05.2022 by passing a speaking order within eight weeks.

Maman Vs State of Haryana and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2022)

¶1

S.No.127

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

¶4

CWP No.20345 of 2022 Date of Decision:08.09.2022 Maman .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents

¶5

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

¶6

Present:Mr. Surinder Kumar Daaria, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶7

¶8

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the period of daily wage service rendered by him from 01.01.1988 till 30.09.2003 has not been taken into account as a qualifying service for computing his pensionary benefits which is not only contrary to the rules governing the service but also against the settled principal of law settled by this Court in

¶10

Kesar Chand Vs. State of Punjab through the Secretary P.W.D, B & R, Chandigarh and others, hence, the respondents are liable to re-compute the pensionary benefits of the petitioner by giving the petitioner the benefit of daily wage service rendered from 01.01.1988 till 30.09.2003 as a qualifying service.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the grievance which is being raised in the petition, has already been brought to the notice of the respondents vide the representation dated 03.05.2022, a copy of which has been attached as Annexure P.9 and the petitioner will be satisfied in case a direction is issued to the respondent No.2 to decide the same by passing an appropriate speaking order in a time bound manner.

¶12

RENU 2022.09.09 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶13

-2-

¶14

CWP No.20345 of 2022

¶15

Notice of motion.

¶16

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Harish Nain, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents- State and raises no objection in deciding the representation dated 03.05.2022 (Annexure P.9) in a time bound manner by passing an appropriate speaking order.

¶17

In view of the pleadings in the present petition, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the claim being made by the petitioner in the representation, respondent No.2 is directed to decide the representation dated 03.05.2022 (Annexure P.9), by passing a speaking order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶18

Present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶19

September	08, 2022 ( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI )
renu	JUDGE
	Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
	Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶20

RENU 2022.09.09 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Maman v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maman v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Preeti Rani Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sunita Chaudhary Vs State of Haryana and Another

Kuldeep Singh Saini Vs State of Haryana and Others

Rajender Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Jai Dev Vs State of Haryana and Others

Anjali Rani Vs State of Haryana and Others