Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (1.48 seconds)
Documents citing Er. Ramesh Chander Mahajan vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 5 October, 2010

Punjab State Electricity Board vs State Of Punjab And Others on 17 October, 2012

All these appeals raise common questions of law and are, thus, decided by the common order. For the sake of convenience, we take note of the facts in LPA No. 169 of 2012. The respondent herein had worked with the Tele Communication Department, Haryana Circle, Ambala Cantt., under the Ministry of Communication, Government of India from 20.08.1970 to 05.03.1984. Thereafter, he joined the appellant, namely, Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board), on 06.03.1984 i.e. on the very next day. He retired from the service of the Board on 31.12.2006. For the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits, the respondent wanted the service rendered in Tele Communication Department to be counted, which request was rejected by the appellant and in these circumstances he approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 6085 of 2007 for counting of the service from 20.08.1970 to 05.03.1984 in the Tele Communication Department. This writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge, relying upon the earlier judgement in Civil Writ Petition No. 12278 of 2010, titled as Er. Ramesh Chander Mahajan Vs State of Punjab and others, decided on 05.10.2010. We may record that the LPA against that judgement was dismissed. However, a Special Leave Petition, filed by the Board is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sudershan Kumar Verma vs State Of Pb. And Ors on 27 July, 2015

It is pertinent to mention that in Ramesh Chander Mahajan's case (supra) the learned Single Judge disposed of a bunch of writ petitions by placing reliance on two Division Bench judgments of this Court rendered in the cases of The Punjab State Electricity Board v. The State of Punjab and others (LPA No. 115 of 2006, decided on 12.9.2008 and S.C. Kapuria v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, 2007 (4) SCT, 755 as well as well as the judgment rendered in the case of Union of India v. State of Punjab and others, 2009 (3) SCT 597, holding that the issue stands concluded and the appellant-Board is under obligation to count the previous service rendered by employees in the Government of India or any other organisation. The learned Single Judge issued the following directions:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - D Sibal - Full Document

Karam Singh Randhawa vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 28 January, 2016

4. Ms. Alka Chatrath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on the letter dated March 31, 1982 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, on the subject of allocation of pensionary liability in respect of temporary service rendered under the Government of India and State Governments. The fallacy in the argument of the petitioner is that he was not a Central Government employee but worked with the IARI, which was an independent autonomous body sponsored by the Central Government. The petitioner did not hold the post under the Central Government and therefore, the resignation severs link with the Punjab Government and the circular relied on will not act in aid of clubbing Punjab Government service with service rendered in IARI in its continuous integrity but on closer examination of the legal position the resignation is a full-fledged one and not technical in nature as canvassed by the petitioner and thus the period of thirteen years service rendered with the Punjab Government becomes inconsequential in the absence of continuity protected by a policy circular recognised bilaterally between the Punjab Government and the Central Government. The IARI remains outside the ambit of the liability of the Punjab Government towards an ex-employee who tendered resigned to make way for joining the post in another organization which does not qualify as Central Government service on a post in a cadre of another office of the Punjab Government. The reliance of Ms. Chatrath on the MONIKA VERMA 2016.02.06 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.7635 of 1993 -4- decisions of the Supreme Court in R.L. Marwaha v. Union of India & ors., 1987(3) JT 292, R.K. Gupta v. Union of India & ors., 1987(4) JT 157, Sukhdev Singh & ors. v. State of Punjab & ors., 2010(7) SLR 772, and the decision of this Court in Er. Ramesh Chander Mahajan v. State of Punjab & ors., 2011(2) SLR 421 are of no help and the reliance is misjudged.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R N Raina - Full Document

Ajaib Singh Mehta vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. And ... on 14 February, 2024

3. The learned Single Judge, while noting the history of the litigation, which had started and consistently followed as the first order was passed on 12.09.2008 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 115 of 2006 (Punjab State Electricity Board vs. State of Punjab and others) had passed a detailed order on 05.10.2010 in Civil Writ Petition No. 12278 of 2010 (Er. Ramesh Chander Mahajan vs. State of Punjab and others) and directed the Corporation to verify the services rendered by the appellants in the Government of India/other organizations. Upon verification if the services rendered by the employees, if found to be covered under the Government Instructions dated 31.03.1982, the benefit of such services was to be granted to them towards the 'qualifying service' within a period of two months. On the other hand, a direction was also issued that the Government of India/its agencies/other boards will also be at liberty to verify the service particulars of the employees and intimate the Punjab State Electricity Board in this regard and reimburse to the PSEB their proportionate share in lump sum towards the pension and other benefits payable to the employees.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Punjab State Electricity Board vs Varinder Kumar Mahajan And Others on 21 July, 2011

In Ramesh Chander Mahajan's case (supra) the learned Single Judge disposed of a bunch of writ petitions by placing reliance on two Division Bench judgments of this Court rendered in the cases of The Punjab State Electricity Board v. The State of Punjab and others (LPA No. 115 of 2006, decided on 12.9.2008 and S.C. Kapuria v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, others, 2007 (4) SCT, 755 as well as well as the judgment rendered in the case of Union of India v. State of Punjab and others, others, 2009 (3) SCT 597, 597 holding that the issue stands concluded and the appellant-Board is under obligation to count their previous service rendered in the Government of India or any other organisation. The learned Single Judge issued the following directions:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Punjab State Electricity Board vs Er. Gurpal Singh And Others on 25 July, 2011

3. It is pertinent to mention that in Ramesh Chander Mahajan's case (supra) the learned Single Judge disposed of a bunch of writ petitions by placing reliance on two Division Bench judgments of this Court rendered in the cases of The Punjab State Electricity Board v. The State of Punjab and others (LPA No. 115 of 2006, decided on 12.9.2008 and S.C. Kapuria v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others others,, 2007 (4) SCT, 755 as well as well as the judgment rendered in the case of Union of India v. State of Punjab and others, others, 2009 (3) SCT 597, 597 holding that the issue stands concluded and the appellant-Board is under obligation to count the previous service rendered by employees in the Government of India or any other organisation. The learned Single Judge issued the following directions:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next