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 1, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Vidur Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 27 March, 2012

Author: Augustine George Masih

Bench: Augustine George Masih

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH
                   ****
                              C.W.P. No.10017 of 2010
                             Date of Decision:27.03.2012

Vidur Kumar
                                                        .....Petitioner
            Vs.

State of Haryana and others
                                                        .....Respondents


CORAM:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih

Present:-   Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. Harish Rathee, Senior Deputy Advocate General,
            Haryana for the respondents.

                         ****


Augustine George Masih, J.(Oral)

Petitioner has approached this Court claiming for the counting service rendered by him in HSMITC for the grant of pensionary benefits.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the claim of the petitioner on all fours is covered by the judgment of this Court in Subh Karan Sharma and others v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 27.5.2010 against which LPA preferred by the State of Haryana, i.e. L.P.A. No.1261 of 2011 - Director, Treasuries and Accounts, Haryana and others v. Subh Karan Sharma and others stands dismissed on 18.8.2011. On this basis, counsel for the petitioner further contends that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Counsel for the respondents submits that the pensionary benefits, which the petitioner was entitled to, have already been released to him and no further benefit can be granted to him.

C.W.P. No.10017 of 2010 -2-

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

The claim of the petitioner is fully covered by the judgment of this Court passed in Subh Karan Sharma's case (supra) against which LPA preferred by the State of Haryana stands dismissed. The present writ petition is allowed in the same terms. Directions as issued therein shall be applicable to the case of the petitioner as well.

March 27, 2012                        ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
renu                                            JUDGE