Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PRITAM SINGH & ORS versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Pritam Singh & Ors v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-9912-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 3790 (6 July 2006)

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

C.W.P. No. 9912 of 2006

Date of Decision: 6.7.2006

Ram Chander and others

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI

PRESENT: Mr. Sailender Singh, Advocate,

for the petitioners.

JUDGMENT

M.M. KUMAR, J. (Oral)

Notice of motion. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana, who is present in the Court accepts notice.

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the writ petition has been heard. The prayer made in the petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the condition that the Dearness Allowance be treated as Dearness Pay for the purposes of Retirement Gratuity/Death Gratuity under the relevant instructions dated 8.3.1996 (P-1). The matter is not res integra as this Court has already opined in favour of the petitioners in the judgments dated 23.9.2005 (P-2), 20.12.2005 (P-4) and 21.4.2006 (P-5). The petitioners have already stake their claims by sending a legal notice on 7.1.2006 (P-3), which is pending consideration of the respondents and no decision on the same has so far been taken.

C.W.P. No. 9912 of 2006

In view of above, we deem it just and appropriate to direct the respondents to take cognisance of the legal notice sent by the petitioners and decide the same expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented to them. If the claim of the petitioners is found to be meritorious and decided in their favour then the benefit accruing to the petitioners shall be disbursed within a further period of four months thereafter. It shall be appreciated if the aforementioned judgments of this Court are kept in view and a speaking order is passed.

Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

(M.M. KUMAR)

JUDGE

(M.M.S. BEDI)

July 6, 2006

JUDGE

Pkapoor


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.