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

Dalbir Singh vs Pepsu Road Transport Corporation ... on 13 May, 2013

Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg

Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

                                  CWP No.2962 of 2012 (O&M)
                                  Date of decision:13.05.2013

Dalbir Singh                                              ....Petitioner
                                  Versus

Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Patiala & another....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

1.     Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to
      see judgment?
2.    To be referred to reporters or not?
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Present:- None for the petitioner.

            Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Advocate
            for Mr. G.S.Gill, Advocate
            for the respondents.


RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL)

In this writ petition, petitioner is seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the retiral benefits of the petitioner.

Upon notice, short reply by way of an affidavit of Sh. DPS Kharbanda, PCS, Managing Director, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala, on behalf of the respondents, has been filed.

Para No.3 of the aforesaid affidavit reads thus:-

"That the petitioner retired from the Corporation on 31.03.2011 and after his reitrement, retiral benefits to the petitioner were released detail of which is as under:-
                  i)      Gratuity ` 3,82,979/-
                  ii)     Leave encashment ` 2,57,300/-
                  iii)    GPF ` 1,88,014/-
 CWP No.2962 of 2012                                 -2-


                  iv)   40% of the arrears amounting to
` 44108/- due to him have also been paid.
Since the retiral benefits which were due on his retirement has been released to the petitioner by the answering respondent, therefore, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed being infructuous."

No one is present on behalf of the petitioner to assist the Court. Neither any replication has been filed to controvert the factum of the payment.

In this view of the matter, present writ petition is ordered to be dismissed having become infructuous.

May 13, 2013                            (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
savita                                        JUDGE