Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajmer Singh vs Pepsu Road Transport Corporation And ... on 1 July, 2010
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.11402 of 2010
Date of Decision : July 01, 2010.
Ajmer Singh .....Petitioner
versus
PEPSU Road Transport Corporation and others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
Present : Mr.Vikas Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioner.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
---
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
The petitioner joined the respondent-Corporation as a Conductor on 25.8.1969 and was later on promoted as Sub-Inspector and Inspector before his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.1.2008. While in service, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 4.5.1994, followed by termination of his services on 20.6.1996. The petitioner successfully challenged the termination order of his services before the Labour Court, Patiala who vide its Award dated 25.7.2001 (Annexure P-2) ordered his reinstatement with full back wages. The said Award has been challenged by the respondent-Corporation before this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.14848 of 2002 (P.R.T.C. Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another), which is stated to be C.W.P.No.11402 of 2010 2 pending but without any interim directions.
Since the petitioner was re-instated; allowed to join the duties and has thereafter retired on attaining the age of superannuation, he sought the payment of retiral dues including pensionary benefits which have not been released despite various representations made by him, followed by a legal notice dated 6.3.2010 (Annexure P-6).
As the facts would speak for themselves, prima-facie, there appears to be no valid reason to deny the petitioner his retiral dues. However, without expressing any opinion at this stage, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's claim as contained in the above- mentioned legal notice (Annexure P-6) and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.
Suffice it to observe that if the petitioner is held entitled to any monetary benefit, the same shall also be released to him within the aforestated stipulated period.
Ordered accordingly.
Dasti.
July 01, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE