Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM SINGH versus UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. AN

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Singh v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. an - CWP-15857-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 8112 (29 September 2006)

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

C.W.P. No. 15857 of 2006

Date of Decision: September 29, 2006

Ram Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and another ...Respondents

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

PRESENT: Mr. J.S. Maanipur, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

M.M. KUMAR, J. (Oral)

The prayer made in the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is for issuance of direction to the respondents to count the work charged service from 1.12.1968 to 14.5.1979 towards qualifying service for the purposes of pension and other retiral benefit. For the aforementioned relief, the petitioner has placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kesar Chand v. State of Haryana, 1988 (5) SLR 25 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mohinder Singh v. XEN and others, 2005(4) SCT 633.

CWP No. 15857 of 2006

For the aforementioned relief claimed in the present writ petition, the petitioner has already got served a legal notice dated 20.6.2006 (P-2) upon the respondents.

Without going into the merits of the case, we deem it just and appropriate to direct the respondents to take cognizance of the legal notice sent by the petitioner and decide the same expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented to them. If the claim of the petitioner is found to be meritorious and decided in his favour then the benefit accruing to the petitioner shall be given within a further period of two months thereafter. It shall be appreciated if the aforementioned judgments of this Court are taken in view and a speaking order is passed.

Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

(M.M. KUMAR)

JUDGE

(M.M.S. BEDI)

September 29, 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.