Charandass v. State Of Punjab And ORS

CWP No. 24740 OF 2017 --1--

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 24740 OF 2017 DECIDED ON: NOVEMBER 01, 2017 CHARAN DASS .....PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH

Present:

Mr. MJS Bedi, 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 in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the remaining retirement benefits including gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund, pensionary benefits, medical benefits and other benefits along with interest @ 18% per annum to him due from the date of retirement i.e. 30.06.2017. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stood retired on 30.06.2017 on attaining the age of superannuation as Sweeper in the office of respondent No.4. No departmental proceedings are pending against the petitioner. Even, a legal notice dated 18.09.2017 (Annexure P-2) was duly served upon the respondents but till date neither any reply has been received nor any conscious decision has been taken. He further submits that petitioner feels Sonika 2017.11.02 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No. 24740 OF 2017 --2-- satisfied in case direction is issued to respondents to decide aforesaid legal notice, within a stipulated period.

3.

Instant petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent(s) to consider the grievances unfolded by the petitioner in his legal notice dated 18.09.2017 (Annexure P-2) 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 legal notice, to release the same within a period of next 45 days. The factum of grant of interest shall also be considered in the light of observations made by Full Bench of this Court in case titled as "A.S. Randhawa v. State of Punjab and others, 1997 (3) SCT, 468. 4.

However, if the petitioner still feels aggrieved against the order passed by the concerned authority, he shall be at liberty to approach this Court. NOVEMBER 01, 2017 (JASPAL SINGH) sonika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes/No Sonika 2017.11.02 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh