Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.57 seconds)
Documents citing M.M. Lal Bareja vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 5 January, 1995

Santosh Sehrawat vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 2 July, 2019

Further, in some what similar situation, wherein also an employee who was working on temporary basis was selected on regular basis on another post, had resigned in order to join the regular post, this Court held that service rendered on temporary basis is liable to be counted as a qualifying service for the grant of pensionary benefits. While deciding CWP No. 5115 of 1993, decided on 05.01.1995, titled as M.M. Lal Bareja Vs. State of Haryana, this Court held that the service which an employee had rendered on temporary post before resigning from the said post is liable to be counted. While rendering the said judgment, this Court had taken into consideration provision of Rule 3.17. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - H S Sethi - Full Document

Shashi Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Another on 4 February, 2020

In view of the settled proposition of law and the judgment rendered in the case of M.M.Lal Bareja vs. State of Haryana, 1995(2) PLR 75 while holding that the service in a Government undertaking cannot be ignored and has to be considered towards pension as long as the resignation was for joining other service under Central and State Government observed in paras No. 6 and 7 read as under :-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Balwant Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 30 November, 1999

16. It is proved in the present case that the petitioner had resigned from Health Department with permission to take up an assignment in Municipal Committee, Shahbad Markanda. It is, thus, not a case where the petitioner might have resigned from service and would not be entitled to the grant of post retiral benefits. The matter is not res integra, inasmuch as rule 4.19(b) has been interpreted by this Court in M. M. Lal Bareja v. State of Haryana, 1995 (1) AIJ 532. It has been held therein that pension is payable even to an employee who was holding temporary post in the State Government and Rules also comprehend grant of pension to a person who has resigned from service in order to take up another appointment and such resignation is not to be treated as resignation from public service.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Devi Singh vs State on 26 May, 2009

5. Even otherwise Rule 3.17 read with Rule 4.19(b) also supports the case of the petitioner. According to the aforementioned rules pension is admissible to an employee who was holding temporary post under the Government from which he resigned in order to join another service under the State Government. It is evident from perusal of Rule 3.17 that if an officer has been holding substantive permanent post on the date of his retirement then his temporary or officiating service under the State Government without interruption by confirmation in the same or any other post is to count as qualifying service. The aforementioned proposition was considered by this Court in the case of M.M.Lall Bareja v. State of Haryana, 1995(2) SCT 178 and it was held that resignation from earlier post with the object of joining another post in another department with proper permission would be considered as qualifying service for the purposes of pension whereas in the present case Rule 3.17 itself is clear with regard to counting of ad hoc C.W.P No. 13909 of 2008 ::5::
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A Tewari - Full Document

Jasbir Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 12 May, 2011

In the light of what has been held above and in the light of the two judgments referred to above, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.2.2003 (Annexure P-18) passed by respondent- No.1 is hereby quashed. A direction is hereby issued to the respondent- State of Punjab to count the previous service rendered by the petitioner in C.W.P.No.14721 of 2009 -6- different departments for pensionary benefits and on such counting, the necessary relief be granted to him. The arrears, if any, on the counting of the previous service rendered by him in different departments for pension, shall be disbursed to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A G Masih - Full Document

Mohinder Singh Ahalawat vs Haryana Urban Development Authority ... on 16 January, 2012

5. Learned counsel refers to a communication from office of the Executive Engineer, Public Health Department where there has been admission of the fact that he had joined HUDA only after taking permission from Public Health Department. Learned counsel relies on a judgment of this Court in M.M. Lal Bareja Vs. State of Haryana 1995 (2) SCT 178 where this Court has considered the relevant Rules 3.71 and 4.19 relating to the counting of service in Central or State Government when a person resigns the same in order to join another service, which is pensionable service. The Court held that resignation that is tendered while serving in the State or Central service prior to joining an autonomous body must be taken as a technical resignation and it should not be treated as a resignation from public service to deny to a person the computation of the period for the purpose of pension. The judgment in my view squarely governs the matter relating to this case.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - K Kannan - Full Document

Bhagat Ram Aggarwal vs State Of Haryana & Others --Respondents on 30 April, 2013

A similar issue as regards the entitlement of an employee to be paid pension in lieu of the service rendered with the Govt. of Haryana prior to joining the service of the National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. i.e. a Govt. of India Undertaking came up for consideration before this Court in case of M.M. Lal Bareja Vs. State of Haryana, 1995 (2) S.C.T
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - T S Dhindsa - Full Document

Mewa Singh Pattar vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 29 April, 2015

"A similar issue as regards the entitlement of an employee to be paid pension in lieu of the service rendered with the Govt. of Haryana prior to joining the service of the National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. i.e. a Govt. of India Undertaking came up for consideration before this Court in case of M.M. Lal Bareja Vs. State of Haryana, 1995 (2) S.C.T 178. While examining such issue in the light of Rules 3.17 and 4.19 (b) contained in Chapter III of the Punjab Civil Service Rules (Vol. II) as applicable to the State of Haryana, it was held that pension is payable even to such an employee who was holding a temporary post under the State Govt. and who may have subsequently resigned from the previous post in order to join another service under the Central or the State Govt. It was further held that the rules contemplate the grant of pension to a person who has resigned from service in order to take up another appointment and such resignation is not to be treated as resignation from public service."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - J Chauhan - Full Document

Satish Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 5 February, 2016

Reference at this stage can be made to a judgment of this Court in a case of M.M. Lal Bareja vs. State of Haryana, 1995(2) P.L.R 75 wherein it has been held that pension is payable to such employee who was holding temporary post under the State Government and who may have subsequently resigned from the same in order to join another service under the Central Government or State Government and also to a person who resigned from service in order to take another appointment. Such resignation is not to be treated as resignation from public service. In para 5, 6 and 7, it has been observed as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R Bahri - Full Document
1