Santosh v. State Of Punjab & ORS

CWP No.22248 of 2017 --1--

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.22248 of 2017 DECIDED ON: SEPTEMBER 28, 2017 SANTOSH .....PETITIONER.

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH

Present:

Mr. Vikas Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner.

***** JASPAL SINGH, J (ORAL) By virtue of instant petition preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought issuance of a writ especially in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay/release the retiral/monetary and other benefits i.e. DCRG, leave encashment, GPF etc. alongwith 18% interest, which have illegally withheld and delayed by the respondents since 02.10.2013.

2.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner namely Mohan Lal was appointed as Safai Sewak in the office of Municipal Council, Kotkapura on 01.06.1979 and died during his service on 02.10.2013. Now, more than four years have been passed after the death of her husband but till date she has not received retiral/monetary and other Sonika 2017.09.29 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No.22248 of 2017 --2-- benefits. Even, legal notice dated 23.08.2017 (Annexure P-1) was duly served upon the respondents but till date neither any response has been received nor any decision has been taken by the respondents. He submits that petitioner feels satisfied in case direction is issued to respondent(s) to decide the aforesaid legal notice, within a stipulated period.

3.

Accordingly, instant petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent(s) to consider the claim(s) of the petitioner unfolded by the petitioner in her legal notice dated 23.08.2017 (Annexure P-1) and to decide the same, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case, the concerned authority comes to the conclusion that petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed through aforesaid legal notice, to release/disburse the same within a period of next one month. The factum of grant of interest be also considered in view of the observations made by Full Bench of this Court in case captioned as "R.S. Randhawa vs. State of Punjab, 1997 (3) RSJ 318.

4.

However, if the petitioner still feels aggrieved of the order passed by the concerned authority, she shall be at liberty to approach this Court. SEPTEMBER 28, 2017, (JASPAL SINGH) sonika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes/No Sonika 2017.09.29 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh