Remanded

Chander Parkash Sharma v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2026CWP/25361/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This case involves a pension and retirement benefits dispute where the petitioner claimed entitlement to honorarium and increment as a compulsorily retired employee, distinguishing them from retrenched employees who did not join. The Court directed the authority to reconsider the matter after a hearing within six months.

What did the court decide?

Authority to reconsider petitioner's claim for honorarium and increment after a hearing within six months.

Chander Parkash Sharma Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

217

¶3

CWP-25361-2021 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.09.2026

¶4

Chander Parkash Sharma

¶5

....Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana and Others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

¶10

¶11

Present : Mr. B.K. Bagri, Advocate for the petitioner

¶12

Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. AG, Haryana

¶13

Mr. P.S. Kaushik and Mr. Daksh Saini, Advocates for Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate for respondent No.3

¶14

¶15

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

¶16

1 . Learned counsel submits that condition No.VI mentioned in the preliminary objection No.1 of the written statement filed by Personnel Officer of HSMITC-respondent No.3 is not applicable as it relates to a retrenched employee, who has either not joined or resigned, however, the petitioner had been compulsorily retired after having joined. In wake of the above, he is entitled to Honorarium and 1 st ACP on the basis of 8 years of service, after joining as also is entitled to increment on the basis of judgment in the case of Umed Singh and Another vs. State of Haryana and Others , CWP-50312024, decided on 01.07.2026 along-with other connected cases and Bharat and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others , CWP-11006-2016, decided on 25.07.2022, wherein it has been held that qua the retrenched employee on the exception can be made from passing type test as also the judgment in the case of Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Haryana and Others ,

¶17

MOHIT 2026.09.10 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CWP-25361-2021 (O&M)

¶19

-2-

¶20

CWP-7695-2021, decided on 30.10.2023, is also not applicable as it relates to an employee, who had either not joined or resigned. In wake of the above, he thus prays that the claim of the petitioner needs to be considered .

¶21

2 . The above facts having been brought out, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for respondent No.3 on instructions fairly states that the authority would not be averse to having a relook at the matter and consider it, taking note of the aforesaid submissions and the judgments referred to hereinabove, and decide the same, within a period of 6 months, in accordance with law, after affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the LRs of the petitioner, which this Court has no reason to believe the authorities would not be addressed in a just, fair and reasonable manner.

¶22

The matter stands disposed of accordingly and if the LRs of the petitioner are found entitled, grant the benefit forthwith. Needless to say, if the orders are adverse to their interest, the same shall contain reasons and they shall be free to seek legal redress thereupon.

¶23

10.09.2026	(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes / No
Whether reportable	: Yes / No

¶24

MOHIT 2026.09.10 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Chander Parkash Sharma v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chander Parkash Sharma 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