Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagjit Singh And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 24 October, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141790
CWP-7121-2014 (O&M) - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1083
CWP-7121-2014 (O&M)
Date of decision: 24.10.2024
Jagjit Singh and Others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and Others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : None for the petitioners
Mr. Tapan Kumar, DAG Haryana
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
1. The prayer made in the present petition is for quashing the impugned order dated 25.10.2013, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for granting the benefit of ACP/Pension in view of Haryana Civil Services (ACP) Rules, 2008, after calculating the service rendered in Haryana Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited.
2. In the index of the petition, a reference had been made to the pendency of CWP-10593-2010, titled as Subhash Chander vs. State of Haryana and Others, which was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 09.02.2012 by passing the following order:
"The petitioner through this writ petition is claiming counting of the past service rendered by him in the Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation Ltd. prior to his absorption in the Department of Revenue. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the claim of the petitioner is covered by the judgment of the Suprerne Court in the State of Haryana Versus Deepak Sood Civil Appeal No. 4446 of 2008 decided on 15th July, 2008.
Counsel for the State could not dispute the assertion made by the petitioner.
1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 30-10-2024 03:33:43 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141790 CWP-7121-2014 (O&M) - 2- In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to the benefit of past service rendered by him in the Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation Limited for the purpose of granting pensionary benefits. The petitioner shall, however, be required to comply with the mandatory requirements, as required by the respondents for seeking such benefits.
The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms."
3. Learned State counsel despite his best efforts has been unable to controvert the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgment or cite any contrary law.
4. In wake of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment passed in Subhash Chander (supra).
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
24.10.2024
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 30-10-2024 03:33:44 :::