Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karnail Singh vs Bhupinder Singh Rai & Anr on 20 December, 2016
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
COCP No. 996 of 2014 (O&M) and other connected cases 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA AT CHANDIGARH
101
Date of decision: 20.12.2016
COCP No. 996 of 2014 (O&M)
Karnail Singh ...PETITIONER
VS.
Sh. Bhupinder Singh Rai and another ...RESPONDENTS
COCP No. 1280 of 2014 (O&M)
Nasib Singh ...PETITIONER
VS.
Sh. Bhupinder Singh and others ...RESPONDENTS
COCP No. 1667 of 2014 (O&M)
Jaswinder Singh ...PETITIONER
VS.
Bhupinder Singh Rai, Managing Director ...RESPONDENT
COCP No. 1668 of 2014 (O&M)
Smt. Ranju Joshi ...PETITIONER
VS.
Bhupinder Singh Rai, Managing Director, PRTC and another
...RESPONDENTS
COCP No. 1690 of 2014 (O&M)
Prem Singh ...PETITIONER
VS.
Sh. Rajeev Prashar, Managing Director, Pepsu Road Transport Corpn.
...RESPONDENTS
COCP No. 717 of 2016 (O&M)
Surinderpal Singh ...PETITIONER
VS.
Ravinder Singh, Managing Director and others ...RESPONDENTS
For Subsequent orders see COCP-1122-2014, COCP-1122-2014, COCP-1047-2014 and 8 more.
1 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2016 16:22:18 :::
COCP No. 996 of 2014 (O&M) and other connected cases 2
COCP No. 1084 of 2014 (O&M)
Sham Singh ...PETITIONER
VS.
Sh. Bhupinder Singh Rai, and another ...RESPONDENTS
COCP No. 1047 of 2014 (O&M)
Bal Krishan ...PETITIONER
VS.
Sh. Bhupinder Singh ...RESPONDENT
COCP No. 1154 of 2014 (O&M)
Narinder Pal ...PETITIONER
VS.
D.P.S.Kharbanda and another ...RESPONDENTS
COCP No. 3420 of 2014 (O&M)
Ashok Raj Singh Pannu ...PETITIONER
VS.
Sh. Rajiv Prashar ...RESPONDENT
COCP No. 1683 of 2014 (O&M)
Gurdial Singh and others ...PETITIONERS
VS.
Sh. Rajiv Prashar ...RESPONDENT
COCP No. 1684 of 2014 (O&M)
Khem Ram ...PETITIONER
VS.
Sh. Rajiv Prashar ...RESPONDENT
COCP No. 1685 of 2014 (O&M)
Kuldeep Singh ...PETITIONER
VS.
Sh. Rajiv Prashar ...RESPONDENT
For Subsequent orders see COCP-1122-2014, COCP-1122-2014, COCP-1047-2014 and 8 more.
2 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2016 16:22:19 :::
COCP No. 996 of 2014 (O&M) and other connected cases 3
COCP No. 1686 of 2014 (O&M)
Balbir Singh and another ...PETITIONERS
VS.
Sh. Rajiv Prashar ...RESPONDENT
COCP No. 697 of 2016 (O&M)
Balwant Singh and others ...PETITIONERS
VS.
Sh. Ravinder Singh, MD, PRTC, Patiala ...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present: Mr. R.K.Arora, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s) in COCP No. 996 of 2014.
Mr. Rai Singh Chauhan, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s) in COCP Nos. 1280, 1047 of 2014 and 717
of 2016.
Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s) in COCP No. 3420, 1683, 1684, 1685,
1686 of 2014 and 697 of 2016.
Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s) in COCP No. 1690 of 2014.
Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate,
for the respondent(s)-PRTC.
Mr. Nitin Kaushal, Advocate,
for the respondent(s) in COCP Nos. 3420, 1667, 1668, 1690 of
2014 and 717 and 697 of 2016.
***
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
Additional affidavit of Sh. Ravinder Singh, Managing Director, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala, has been filed in COCP No. 1684 of 2014 in Court today and in para-5 thereof, it has been stated as follows:-
" That it is submitted that as stated the arrears of pay For Subsequent orders see COCP-1122-2014, COCP-1122-2014, COCP-1047-2014 and 8 more.
3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2016 16:22:19 ::: COCP No. 996 of 2014 (O&M) and other connected cases 4 revision and dearness allowance etc. have been released to the petitioners and thus all the payments towards retiral benefits have been released to the petitioners as per the record maintained by the office of the respondent."
In view of the above, these contempt petitions have been rendered infructuous and are disposed of as such.
In case the petitioners have any grievance with regard to the payments, which they were entitled to and have not been released including interest, they may represent to the Managing Director, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala, within a period of three weeks from today. If such a representation is made, the same shall be considered and decided by passing a speaking order within a further period of six weeks. In case the claim of the petitioner(s) is considered and decided in his/their favour, the consequential benefits be released to him/them within a further period of eight weeks.
Rule issued to the respondent(s) stands discharged.
December 20, 2016 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
pj JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: No
For Subsequent orders see COCP-1122-2014, COCP-1122-2014, COCP-1047-2014 and 8 more.
4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2016 16:22:19 :::