High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/12154/2019disposed of

Kulwinder Kaur v. The Punjab State Electricity Board

2019-05-09Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi2 pages

CWP-12154-2019 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-12154-2019 Date of decision: - 09.05.2019 Kulwinder Kaur ....Petitioner

Versus

Punjab State Electricity Board, thorugh its Secretary, the Mall Patiala (Punjab) Now Punjab State Power Cororation Limited. .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present:- Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL) In the present writ petition, the grievance which is being raised by the petitioner is that she was initially appointed on 30.04.1986 and she worked continuously till she was served with the retrenchment notice on 16.03.1988 (Annexure P-4). The said notice was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.2844 of 1988. During the pendency of the said petition, no action was taken in pursuance of the retrenchment notice and the petitioner worked continuously with the respondents. Ultimately, the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court by upholding retrenchment notice.

Counsel for the petitioner states that despite serving of retrenchment notice, no action was taken by the respondents and petitioner kept working with the respondents till she superannuated on 31.03.2017. The said contention is being supported by the petitioner in view of the order dated 15.12.2016 (Annexure P-9). NARESH KUMAR 2019.05.15 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CWP-12154-2019 -2Counsel for the petitioner further states that though the petitioner had 31 years of service to her credit, but despite order no benefit after retirement has been given to her without any valid justification.

Counsel for the petitioner further states that for the relief which has been sought in the present writ petition, petitioner has made a representation dated 05.03.2019 (Annexure P-11) to the respondents, which is still pending consideration with the respondents and the petitioner will be satisfied, at this stage, in case a time bound direction is issued to the respondents to decide the said representation by passing an appropriate speaking order.

In view of the request made, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the claim being made by the petitioner, the respondents are directed to decide the representation dated 05.03.2019 (Annexure P-11) by passing a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case after the decision, it is found that the petitioner is entitled for any monetary benefit, the same shall also be released to her within a period of next three months.

Present writ petition stands disposed of.

( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI ) May 09, 2019 JUDGE naresh.k Whether reasoned/speaking?

Yes Whether reportable?

No NARESH KUMAR 2019.05.15 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh