Surender Singh vs Uhbvnl And Others on 19 December, 2013

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Surender Singh vs Uhbvnl And Others on 19 December, 2013

Bench: M.M.S. Bedi

                    CWP No. 28144 of 2013                                            [1]




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                                                     CHANDIGARH.

                                                      CWP No.28144 of 2013

                                                      Date of Decision: December 19, 2013

                    Surender Singh

                                                            .....Petitioner

                                  Vs.

                    UHBVNL and others

                                                            .....Respondents

                    CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

                                               -.-

                    Present:-     Mr.R.S. Malik, Advocate
                                  for the petitioner.


                                        -.-

                    M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner through instant writ petition has sought a direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to count the daily wage/ work charge service from November 1, 1981 to July 31, 1985 for the purpose of retiral benefits.

In this context, the petitioner has sent a legal notice dated November 18, 2013.

Without expression of any opinion on merits of the case, this petition is disposed of with a direction to MD UHBVNL to ensure that the Gupta Sanjay 2013.12.20 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 28144 of 2013 [2] claim of the petitioner as depicted in legal notice dated November 18, 2013 is considered within a period of three months after the receipt of a certified copy of the order by passing a speaking order. In case the petitioner is held entitled to the relief, the entire exercise to release the consequential benefits would be taken up within next two months. It is made clear that the directions laid down in Satbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2002 (2) SCT 354, which are reproduced hereunder for the consideration of the concerned authorities would be followed:-

"18. Further, we are of the considered view that the State must react and respond to a legal notice/representation served by a person, particularly its employee, within a reasonable time. There are two obvious advantages of such action. Firstly the employee would know how and for what reasons he is being denied the benefit/relief, and secondly, the reasoned version of the State would be on judicial record before the Courts for its judicial scrutiny at the very initial hearing. We must notice with appreciation that the learned Advocate General, Haryana, not only supported the issuance of such directions but also brought to the notice of the Court that the Advocate General's office had already taken up the matter with the Government and Gupta Sanjay 2013.12.20 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 28144 of 2013 [3] the Government is expected to deal with the same effectively and expeditiously.

19. Be that as it may, particularly in the afore-referred premises, we still feel that it is the bounden duty of the Court to issue the following directions to the State in the larger public interest and for proper administration of justice: -

(i) Wherever the right of the parties have been settled by a judgment of the Court, the State has taken all remedies available to it in law against the judgment even upto the highest Court of the land and the judgments has attained finality, then the State must accept the judgment and implement it in its true spirit and command. There is implicit obligation on the part of the State to grant same relief to other members of the cadre whose claim was based upon identical facts and points of law.

(ii) The State Government shall as expeditiously as possible in any case not later than four months re-act and respond to a legal notice/representation served upon it by any of its employees in redressal of his grievance/grant of relief, which has been granted to his co-employee similarly situated, in furtherance to the judgment of the Court. Gupta Sanjay 2013.12.20 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 28144 of 2013 [4]

Unless for reasons to be indicated in the reply, the State feels compelled to deny such relief. Needless to point out that denial must neither be evasive nor intended to circumvent the orders of the Court.

(iii) In the event such an employee is compelled to approach the Court of law, whereupon the court awards interest and/or costs while allowing such a petition, then the expenditure incurred by the State including the costs/interests paid in furtherance to the orders of the Court should be recovered from the erring officer(s).

(iv) The concerned quarters of the Government are expected to work out the details in furtherance to the above directions and issue pervasive but definite instructions to all its departments forthwith to ensure compliance."

                    December 19, 2013                                (M.M.S.BEDI)
                     sanjay                                            JUDGE




Gupta Sanjay
2013.12.20 12:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court