Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KARTAR SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kartar Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. - CWP-10440-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 3982 (11 July 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.W.P. No.10440 of 2006.

DATE OF DECISION : 14.7.2006.

Kartar Singh

.........Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and Ors.

.........Respondents.

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

Present : Mr.N.K.Malhotra, Advocate

for the petitioner.

****

M.M. KUMAR, J. ( ORAL )

The petitioner has joined service on 9.5.1951 and he resigned, which was accepted on 31.12.1966. Accordingly he was relieved from duty from 31.12.1966. The prayer now made is that he had completed about more than 15 years of service and order dated 25.3.2002 ( Annexure P6 ) passed by the Director, Primary Education Haryana, Chandigarh, declining the request of the petitioner, be set aside and a direction be issued to the respondents to grant him pensionary benefits and all other consequential benefits along with interest @ 18% per annum.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that there are many hurdles in the way of the petitioner for granting relief which has been sought in this petition. There are valid doubt as to whether after resignation the petitioner in the year 1966 would have forfeited his service disentitling him for any relief of pension because a period of more than about 40 years have passed since the passing of order relieving him from service and expressly disclosing that he was not entitled C.W.P. No.10440 of 2006

to pension.

According to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bhai Lal Bhai AIR 1964 SC 1006, the petitioner could invoke the jurisdiction of a Civil Court by filing a suit within a period of three years and the same principle has been made applicable to filing of a writ petition. If a suit could not be filed the writ petition would also not be maintainable, after such a huge delay. It would amount to reopening the whole issue all over again. Obviously it is not a simple case of delay in granting pension but many other issues are also involved including request of resignation etc. A perusal of order Annexure P6 makes the aforementioned position explicit. There is no ground to interfere in the order dated 25.3.2002.

Dismissed.

( M.M. KUMAR )

JUDGE

July 14, 2006 ( M.M.S. BEDI )

SP JUDGE


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.