High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/19367/2019disposed of

Surinder Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others

2019-07-18Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi2 pages

CWP-19367-2019 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-19367-2019 Date of decision: - 18.07.2019 Surinder Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present:- Ms. Jigyasa Tanwar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

**** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL) Counsel for the petitioner argues that after the retirement of the petitioner, benefits for which he was entitled for, were not released to him and the claim of the petitioner is that service rendered by him with the Punjab Technical Education, to be counted as a qualifying service for the grant of pensionary benefits. Counsel for the petitioner further argues that as the said benefit was not being extended to the petitioner, he filed a CWP No.9375 of 2015, which was disposed of on 13.05.2015 by directing the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner for the grant of the benefits within a period of two months. Thereafter, as the order was not complied with, petitioner filed a contempt petition being COCP No.2854 of 2016, which was disposed of on 27.09.2018, wherein it has been recorded that certain benefits have been extended to the petitioner, but there are still some, NARESH KUMAR 2019.07.24 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CWP-19367-2019 -2which are required to be released and hence, a liberty was granted to him to avail the remedy in accordance with law.

Counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the liberty granted, petitioner submitted a representation dated 01.03.2019 (Annexure P-5) with the Director, Local Government, Punjab, as well as with the Director, Punjab Technical Education, Chandigarh, for seeking the benefit of interest as well as for refunding the amount of `1,57,500/-, which was deducted from his pensionary benefits. Counsel for the petitioner states that despite the expiry of an approximately 4 1⁄2 months, no action has been taken by the respondents and petitioner will be satisfied, at this stage, in case a time bound direction is issued to the respondents to decide the representation dated 01.03.2019 (Annexure P-5) by passing a 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, respondents are directed to decide the representation dated 01.03.2019 (Annexure P-5) by passing a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Present writ petition stands disposed of.

( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI ) July 18, 2019 JUDGE naresh.k Whether reasoned/speaking?

Yes Whether reportable?

No NARESH KUMAR 2019.07.24 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh