Budh Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 6160 P&H

CWP No. 6547 of 2020
                                       1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

(101)                            CWP No. 6547 of 2020
                                 Date of Decision : 05.07.2022
Budh Singh
                                                                    ....Petitioner

                                    Versus


State of Haryana and others
                                                                 .....Respondents


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present:-    Mr. Nafees Ahmad Khan, Advocate for the petitioner.

             ***

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in the present

case, the petitioner was appointed through employment exchange as a part

time employee on Class-IV post in the year 1982 and he continued working

as such till he attained the age of 58 years and had actually worked with the

respondents for a period of more than three decades. Learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner was sent for

regularization under 2003 Policy but the same could not be finalized before

the petitioner attained the age of superannuation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that keeping in view

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) No. 1109 of

2022 titled as State of Gujarat and others Vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai

Patel, dated 18.02.2022. an ad-hoc employee, who continuously worked for

three decades, is entitled for the grant of pension even if the said employee

has worked on ad-hoc basis.

1 of 2

CWP No. 6547 of 2020

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has

already raised the said grievance in the representation dated 14.10.2019

(Annexure P-4), which is still pending consideration with the respondents

and petitioner will be satisfied, at this stage, in case a direction is issued to

respondent No. 2 to decide the same by passing an appropriate speaking

order in a time bound manner.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Raman Kumar Sharma, learned

Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, who is present in Court, accepts notice

on behalf of the respondent-State and raises no objection in deciding the

representation dated 14.10.2019 (Annexure P-4) in a time bound manner by

passing an appropriate speaking order.

In view of the pleadings in the present petition, without

expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the claim being made by

the petitioner in the representation, respondent No. 2 is directed to decide

the representation dated 14.10.2019 (Annexure P-4), by passing a speaking

order within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of copy of this order.

Present writ petition stands disposed of.

July 05, 2022                       ( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI )
kanchan                                      JUDGE

                                         √
             Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
                                            √
             Whether reportable?        Yes/No




                                      2 of 2