High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/3450/2016disposed of

Zora Singh v. State Of Punjab And ORS

2019-02-22Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi2 pages

CWP-3450-2016 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-3450-2016 Date of decision: - 22.02.2019 Zora Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present:- Mr. H.S. Dhindsa, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Deepali Puri Sandhu, Additional Advocate General, Pb. Ms. Vaishali, Advocate for respondents No.5 and 6.

**** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL) Counsel for the parties state that there is a compromise which has been arrived at before the Mediation Centre between the parties in respect of the grant of the retiral benefits, which accrued due to the death of Sh. Kuldeep Singh, son of the petitioner, husband and father of respondents No.5 and 6.

Counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the said compromise, the respondent department needs to take appropriate action for the release of the benefits to the beneficiaries as per the agreement/compromise.

NARESH KUMAR 2019.02.27 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CWP-3450-2016 -2Counsel for the parties state that they will have no objection in case, the respondent department releases the benefit to the parties as per the compromise which they have entered before the Mediation Centre. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State states that the benefits could not be released due to the dispute between the parties and now in view of the facts that a compromise entered between the parties before the Mediation Centre, appropriate order granting the benefit to the beneficiaries will be passed by the competent authority of the respondent department in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties before the Mediation Centre, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Counsel for respondent(s)-State states that this order should not be treated as a precedent for the future. In view of the above position and undertaking given by the respondents, counsel for the petitioner does not want to press the present writ petition any further, at this stage.

Disposed of, not pressed at this stage.

( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI ) February 22, 2019 JUDGE naresh.k Whether reasoned/speaking?

Yes Whether reportable?

No NARESH KUMAR 2019.02.27 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh