Sushila Devi vs State Of Haryana And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1962 P&H

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

122                                               CWP-5838-2022
                                                  Date of decision : 23.03.2022

SUSHILA DEVI
                                                                  ...... Petitioner

                             VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
                                                                 ...... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

                             ***

Present :-       Mr. Ravinder Singh Dhull, Advocate
                 for the petitioner.

                       (through video conferencing)
                             ***

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been field with a prayer that the earned

leave admissible to the petitioner after she attained the age of superannuation

on 31.03.2020, has not been released and that too without any valid

justification.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are no

proceedings pending against the petitioner either before the Department or

competent Court of law, which will give the jurisdiction to the respondents

to withhold the pensionary benefits and as per the judgment of the Full

Bench of this Court in A. S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab in CWP

No.2883 of 1997 dated 16.05.1997, the employees are entitled for the

release of the pensionary benefits within a period of two months of their

retirement in case, there is no impediment and therefore, the respondents are

liable to be directed to release the leave encashment of the petitioner

forthwith without any further delay.

                                      1 of 2

              CWP-5838-2022                      :2:

Learned counsel further submits that the benefits being claimed

has also been claimed by the petitioner by serving legal notice dated

11.10.2021 (Annexure P/3) 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

by passing an appropriate speaking order.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Narender Singh Behgal, AAG, Haryana, who has joined the

proceedings through video conference, keeping in view the service of

advance copy of petition accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and

states that the legal notice dated 11.10.2021 (Annexure P/3) submitted by

the petitioner will be decided within a period of eight weeks from today and

in case, after the decision, it is found that any action needs to be taken, the

same will also be taken without any further delay.

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the

merits of the case or the claim being made by the petitioner through the legal

notice, respondent No.2 is directed to decide legal notice dated 11.10.2021

(Annexure P/3) submitted by the petitioner by passing a speaking order

within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order and in case, the petitioner is found entitled for any benefits, the same

will also be released within a period of next four weeks.

Present writ petition stands disposed of.

                                            (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
                                                    JUDGE
23.03.2022
rimpal
             Whether speaking/reasoned          Yes
             Whether Reportable :               No


                                   2 of 2