High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/16781/2001disposed of

Kartar Singh v. The State Of Punjab & ANR.

2020-02-13Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi2 pages

CWP-16781-2001 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-16781-2001 (O&M) Date of decision: - 13.02.2020 Kartar Singh ....Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: - Mr. Ashish Goklaney, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Anju Arora, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. *** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL) In the present writ petition, the petitioner is claiming the retiral benefits for the service, which he has rendered with the respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions from Mr. Jagjeevan Singh, Law Officer, O/o Director State Transport, Punjab, Chandigarh states that all the pensionary benefits for which the petitioner was entitled for have been released.

Learned counsel for the respondents states that 5% cut in pension was imposed for the recovery of `55,651/-, which is the subject matter in CWP-22629-2010 titled as 'Kartar Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others'.

NARESH KUMAR 2020.02.20 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CWP-16781-2001 (O&M) -2Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner was entitled for ex-gratia amount of `50,000/- under the rules, which is yet to be paid.

Learned counsel for the respondents states that there is no prayer in the present writ petition for the above-said benefit, which fact is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that petitioner be given a liberty to approach the respondents by filing an appropriate representation claiming the ex-gratia amount. Learned counsel for the respondents states that in case any representation is filed by the petitioner claiming any benefit, the same will be considered in accordance with law and appropriate order will be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the same.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the above, petitioner does not want to press the present writ petition any further and the same may be disposed of, as having being not pressed. Ordered accordingly.

( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI ) February 13, 2020 JUDGE naresh.k Whether reasoned/speaking?

Yes Whether reportable?

No NARESH KUMAR 2020.02.20 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh