Mangat Ram & ORS v. State Of Punjab & ORS

RA-CW-486-2015 in/and CWP No.24437 of 2015 : 1 :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH RA-CW-486-2015 in/and CWP No.24437 of 2015 Date of decision: 30.3.2016 Mangat Ram and others ... Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and others ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA

Present:

Mr.Gurbinder Singh, Advocate, for Mr.Anoop Singla, Advocate, for the applicants-petitioners.

Mr.Inqulab Nagpal, AAG, Punjab.

Mr.Vinish Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

***** 1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J. (Oral) Heard.

Review application is dismissed. The matter is taken up for final disposal.

Though notice of motion had been issued to respondent No.6 alone on the premise that he retired in 2015 in case of entitlement to gratuity but on re-consideration and after hearing learned Municipal Council, Kotkapura, the 6th respondent is relegated to his alternative remedy available before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. PARITOSH KUMAR 2016.04.01 11:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

RA-CW-486-2015 in/and CWP No.24437 of 2015 : 2 :

The petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. The period spent in litigating in this Court would be excluded from limitation before the forum below for the reason that this Court entertained the petition qua petitioner No.6 and, therefore, the petitioner would take the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in pursuing the remedy in a bonafide manner in this Court.

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE March 30, 2016 Paritosh Kumar PARITOSH KUMAR 2016.04.01 11:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document