← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/13773/2020disposed of

Ram Kishan v. Managing Director, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. And ANR

2020-09-07Mr. Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP-13773-2020 Date of Decision:-7.9.2020 RAM KISHAN ... Petitioner

Versus

MANAGING DIRECTOR, UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. AND ANR ... Respondents *****

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL ***** Present:- Mr. Sandeep Thakan, Advocate for the petitioner.

(Proceedings conducted through video conferencing). ***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral) 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner who had joined as Workmate in the year 1988 on work-charged basis was regularized in the year 1995. Ultimately, he retired as AFM (Assistant Foreman) on 31.5.2020. It is contended that the service rendered by the petitioner prior to his regularization i.e. for the period 1988 to 1995 is somehow not being treated as qualifying service, although the position in this regard has been well-settled in Kashmir Chand vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others GAURAV SOROT 2020.09.07 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

( 2 ) CWP-13773-2020 2005(4) RSJ 581. It has further been submitted that though the petitioner had served legal notice dated 3.7.2020 (Annexure P-4) upon the respondents but to no avail.

2.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also while refraining from making any expressions as regards merits of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1-Managing Director, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Limited to look into the matter and to dispose of legal notice dated 3.7.2020 (Annexure P-4) in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of 3 months from receipt of copy of this order and in case anything is found to be due to be paid to the petitioner, the same be paid within 3 months thereafter. It is further clarified that the respondents shall also consider payment of interest on account of delayed payment in case it is found that some amount is due to be paid to the petitioner.

( GURVINDER SINGH GILL) 7.9.2020 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking?

Yes / No Whether reportable?

Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2020.09.07 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document