Santro vs State Of Haryana And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1536 P&H

CWP No. 4908 of 2022
                                        1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

(116)                            CWP No. 4908 of 2022
                                 Date of decision : 11.03.2022

Smt. Santro                                          ...Petitioner

                                    Versus

State of Haryana and others                           .....Respondents


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present:-   Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate and
            Ms. Aarti Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

            ***

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner had

joined service with the respondents in the year 1997 and continued working

till her services were regularized by the respondents in the year 2014 and

thereafter, on attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired on

31.08.2018 but her claim of retiral benefits have not been considered under

the Old Pension Scheme but the same has been considered under the

Contributory Provident Fund Scheme by ignoring the judgment of a

Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2371 of 2010 titled as Harbans

Lal Vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 31.08.2010, which

judgment has already attained finality upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India, wherein, it has already been held that an employee who was in service

on 01.01.2004, though the services of the said employee have been

regularized after the said date, will be entitled for the pension under the Old

Pension Scheme.

1 of 2

CWP No. 4908 of 2022

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that a direction be

issued to the respondents to grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner

including pension under the Old Pension Scheme as per the judgment of the

Division Bench of this Court in Harbans Lal's case (supra).

Notice of motion.

Mr. Raman Kumar Sharma, learned Addl. Advocate General,

Haryana, who has joined the proceedings through video conference, accepts

notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that for the

relief, which has been claimed in the present writ petition, petitioner has

served respondents with a legal notice dated 15.12.2021 (Annexure P-7),

which is still pending consideration with the respondents and the petitioner

will be satisfied, at this stage, in case a time bound direction is issued to

respondent No. 2 to decide the said legal notice.

In view of the request made, without expressing any opinion on

the merits of the case and the claim being made by the petitioner,

respondent No. 2 directed to decide the legal notice dated 15.12.2021

(Annexure P-7) by passing a speaking order within a period of eight weeks

from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

March 11, 2022                      ( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI )
kanchan                                      JUDGE

             Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes
             Whether reportable?               No




                                      2 of 2