Vijay Singh Yadav v. State Of Haryana & ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.24170 of 2016 Date of decision: November 23, 2016 Vijay Singh Yadav ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN *****

Present:

Mr. Ajay Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. ****** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) 1.

The challenge in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the orders dated 18.04.2005, 01.04.2008, 07.07.2011 (Annexures P-17, P-28 & P-35 respectively) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (in short 'CAT') along with letters dated 30.03.2007, 21.06.2007, 10.03.2008, 01.02.2011 (Annexures P-22, P-24, P-27 & P-31 respectively) issued by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Chandigarh and the same are contrary to the judgment dated 10.11.2006 (Annexure P-21) passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7999 of 2002, titled as 'District Rehabilitation Officer and other vs. Jay Kishore Maity and others' 2006 (12) SCC 380 and thereafter to extend all the consequential benefits arising thereof to the petitioner along with interest @ 18% p.a. Further prayer has also been made to direct the respondents to disburse the pensionary Sonia Kinra 2016.11.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

Civil Writ Petition No.24170 of 2016 -2- ----- benefits as well as the arrears along with interest @ 18% p.a. in view of the judgment of this Court in CWP No.2371 of 2010 titled as 'Harbans Lal vs. State of Punjab and others' decided on 31.08.2010 (Annexure P-40) against which SLP filed by the State was dismissed on 30.07.2012 (Annexure P-41) as well as the Review Petition (C) No.2038 of 2013 in SLP (C) 23578 of 2012 titled as 'State of Punjab and others vs. Harbans Lal' was dismissed on 04.11.2015 (Annexure P-42).

2.

After arguing for sometime, when the Bench was not agreeing with the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was prayed that he may be allowed to withdraw the present writ petition. 3.

Dismissed as withdrawn as prayed.

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (RAMENDRA JAIN) November 23, 2016 JUDGE sonia gugnani Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No Whether reportable?

Yes/No Sonia Kinra 2016.11.23 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh