Disposed

Subhash Chander v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Jan 2023CWP/8051/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition on a consensus reached between counsel. The petitioner had to deposit EPF contributions within one month, after which the respondent-Nigam was to count the petitioner's work-charge service for pension benefits within another month.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to deposit EPF and interest within one month. Respondent directed to count service and process pension within one month thereafter.

Subhash Chander Vs Uttar Haryana… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

CWP No.8051 of 2016(O&M) �

¶2

208

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.8051 of 2016(O&M) Date of Decision: 12.01.2023

¶5

Subhash Chander ......Petitioner Vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others .....Respondents

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

¶7

Present:Mr. Shubham Kashyap, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Singal, Advocate

¶8

for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Abhilaksh Grover, Advocate for the respondents. ****

¶10

RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral)

¶11

[1]. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to count the work-charge service of the petitioner from 17.02.1970 to 05.02.1985 towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits and release the same along with interest.

¶12

[2]. Along with the replication filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has annexed the order dated 28.11.2016 and contends that vide the aforesaid order, it has been decided by the respondent-Nigam to count the period of service rendered by the petitioner in the work-charge capacity w.e.f. 14.11.1968

¶13

PRINCE SAINI 2023.01.13 12.30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶14

CWP No.8051 of 2016(O&M) �

¶15

to 05.02.1985 except EOL 268 days, which has been tabulated in the earlier part of the order towards pensionary benefits subject to the condition to deposit EPF amount (employee/employer share) along with upto date interest.

¶16

[3]. Even according to the learned counsel for the respondents, though the order was passed on 28.11.2016, but the petitioner has not complied with the same till date.

¶17

[4]. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cause being recurring in nature, the petitioner shall do the needful in the context of order dated 28.11.2016 within a period of one month.

¶18

[5]. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that on making the compliance of the order dated 28.11.2016 by the petitioner, needful in the context of counting the period of service in the work-charge capacity w.e.f. 14.11.968 to 05.02.1985 except EOL 268 days, shall be done by the competent authority within a further period of one month.

¶19

[6]. In view of consensus arrived at between the parties, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶20

(RAJ MOHAN SINGH) 12.01.2023 JUDGE Prince Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶21

PRINCE SAINI 2023.01.13 12.30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Subhash Chander v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Chander v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & 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

Attar Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ehc Suresh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sunder Sham Arora Vs State of Punjab

Naveen and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Joginder Pal Vs State of Haryana & Others

Chotte Lal Vs a.G.M., D.H.B.V.N Ltd. and Others