Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ROSHAN LAL & ANR versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Roshan Lal & Anr v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-3265-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 8455 (12 October 2006)

C.W.P. No. 3265 of 2006 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.W.P. No. 3265 of 2006

Date of Decision: October 16, 2006

Roshan Lal and another

.....Petitioners

Vs.

State of Haryana and others

.....Respondents

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

Present:- None for the petitioners.

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana,

for respondents No.1 and 2.

Mr. Sanjay S. Chauhan, Advocate

for respondent No.3.

-.-

M.M. KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

Written statement on behalf of respondent No.3 has been filed in Court. The same is taken on record.

C.W.P. No. 3265 of 2006 [2]

The prayer made in this petition is for issuance of a direction to the respondents to release the amount of pensionary benefits of the petitioners on account of balance amount of contribution towards Employees Provident Fund payable by Municipal Council, Panipat. It has further been prayed that a direction issued to the respondents to release arrears of pension, such as Pension, Gratuity, leave encashment etc. due to revision of pay scale w.e.f. January 1, 1996 in view of the notification issued by the Haryana Government on January 7, 1998 along with interest.

The learned State counsel has placed on record a copy of the order dated October 16, 2006 showing that the amount with-held from the Employees Contributory Fund account of the petitioners have been released to them and accordingly account payee cheque dated October 13, 2006 in respect of both the petitioners representing an amount of Rs.10430/- and Rs.6439/- respectively, have been sent to the petitioners. With regard to the other amount, it has been mentioned that the amount which was ordered to be recovered before March 4, 1993 has continued in the account of the petitioner and even the interest earned on the aforementioned amount has been credited to the aforementioned account. The amount with-held after April, 1999 was payable and the same has been calculated and paid. The copy of the order is taken on record as Mark `A'.

In view of the above, nothing survives for adjudication in the proceedings. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. In case, any other due is payable to the petitioners, C.W.P. No. 3265 of 2006 [3]

then the same may be claimed by them by filing a representation to the respondents which shall be disposed of in accordance with law.

(M.M.KUMAR)

JUDGE

October 16, 2006 (M.M.S.BEDI)

sanjay 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.