Kiran Bala v. State Of Punjab And ORS

CWP No.24471 OF 2018 --1--

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.24471 OF 2018 DECIDED ON: SEPTEMBER 25, 2018 KIRAN BALA ....PETITIONER..

VS.

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS.

....RESPONDENTS..

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH Present:- Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Advocate, for the petitioner.

***** JASPAL SINGH, J.

Through instant petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant family pension, gratuity (DCRG), ex-gratia, provident fund along with arrears and interest with regard to services rendered by her husband with police department by counting his entire daily wage service rendered prior to his regularization as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary/retiral benefits. And further the husband of the petitioner be held entitled to receive pensionary benefits as per the old GPF Scheme which was applicable to employees recruited in Punjab Government Service prior to 01.01.2014, the case being squarely covered by the decisiond ated 31.08.2010 passed by this Court in CWP No.2371 of 2010.

2.

At the very outset of the arguments, learned counsel for the SONIKA 2018.09.27 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No.24471 OF 2018 --2-- petitioner submits that petitioner moved representation dated 15.10.2017 (P-8) but till date neither any response has been received nor any conscious decision has been taken by the respondents. He further submits that petitioner feels satisfied in case direction is issued to respondents to decide aforesaid representation (P-8), in a time bound manner. 3.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, instant petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2-Director General of Police, Punjab Mini Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh to look into the grievances unfolded by the petitioner in representation (P-8) and to take a conscious decision, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

4.

However, if petitioner still feels aggrieved by any of the orders passed by the concerned authority, she shall be at liberty to have recourse to other remedies available under law including to approach this Court. SEPTEMBER 25, 2018 (JASPAL SINGH) sonika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

Yes/No SONIKA 2018.09.27 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh