Vidya Kaur v. State Of Punjab And ORS.

C. W. P. No. 8085 of 2014 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Sr. No. 212 Case No. : C. W. P. No. 8085 of 2014 Date of Decision : May 01, 2015 Vidya Kaur ....

Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab and others ....

Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL.

* * * To be referred to Reporters or not ?

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? * * * Present :

Ms. Jyoti Sareen, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Akshita Chauhan, Advocate for respondents no. 3 to 5.

* * * DEEPAK SIBAL , J.

:

The petitioner, who was working as a Peon with the respondent - The Mansa Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Mansa (hereinafter referred to as - the respondent Bank), was to superannuate on 30.04.2014. Claiming the benefit of instructions of the Government, which had been adopted by the respondent Bank, the petitioner sought extension of her service for a

C. W. P. No. 8085 of 2014 2 period of one year. The same was declined vide order dated 28.02.2014 (Annexure P-16), against which the petitioner has preferred the present petition. On 29.04.2014, while issuing notice of motion, this Court had stayed operation of order dated 28.02.2014 (Annexure P-16) and as a result thereof, it is the admitted position between the parties that the petitioner was allowed to discharge her duties in the respondent Bank and on 30.04.2015, has completed the term of one year. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that though the petitioner has served the respondent Bank for one year, no salary for that period has been paid to her.

Learned counsel for the respondents states that the salary for the aforesaid period was not paid to the petitioner on account of pendency of the present petition.

Without commenting on the merits of the matter, in view of the fact that the petitioner has actually served the respondent Bank on a Class IV post, for the period of one year, and has now been relieved after the expiry of the extended period, she cannot be denied her salary and remuneration for the period, she had served the respondent Bank under the interim orders of this Court.

Accordingly, it is directed that the salary for the period, the petitioner had served the respondent Bank, be paid to her. The retiral benefits of the petitioner, which are said to have not been paid to her, are

C. W. P. No. 8085 of 2014 3 also directed to be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. ( DEEPAK SIBAL ) JUDGE May 01, 2015 monika