Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Partap Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 January, 2011

Author: Mahesh Grover

Bench: Mahesh Grover

CWP No. 12294 of 2010(O&M)            1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

                      CWP No. 12294 of 2010(O&M)
                        Decided on : 18-01-2011

Partap Singh and others
                                                         ....Petitioners

                    VERSUS

State of Haryana and others

                                                         ....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. A.K.Rathee, Advocate for petitioners Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana MAHESH GROVER, J The petitioners were the erstwhile employees of Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation (HSMITC) which was wound up rendering the services of the employees as surplus.

As per the policy of the State Government, such employees were absorbed/adjusted in other employments. The grievance of the petitioners is that the period of service rendered by them in the HSMITC be counted for the purposes of granting monetary benefits etc. He has referred to the decision rendered by this Court in CWP No.19638 of 2008 decided on 14.1.2010 and attached alongwith petition as Annexure P-3 to enhance his case.

On notice of motion having been issued, reply has been filed and to a pointed query by this Court as to whether the matter is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in CWP No.19638 of 2008 CWP No. 12294 of 2010(O&M) 2 decided on 14.1.2010 (Annexure P-3), learned counsel for the State could not effectively distinguish the case of the present petitioners from the ones who were the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the decision of this Court rendered in CWP No.19638 of 2008 decided on 14.1.2010 (Annexure P-3). Hence, the instant petition is allowed in the same terms as observed in CWP No.19638 of 2008 decided on 14.1.2010 (Annexure P-3).

January 18, 2011                               (Mahesh Grover)
rekha                                             Judge