Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajit Singh Sangwan vs State Of Haryana And Others on 25 May, 2022
CWP-855-2021 and other connected cases 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(272) CWP-855-2021
Date of Decision : May 25, 2022
Dilbag Singh .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
(2) CWP-881-2021
Sher Singh .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
(3) CWP-882-2021
Jit Ram Khokhar .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
(4) CWP-883-2021
Ajit Singh Sangwan .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
1 of 6
(5) CWP-884-2021
Kailash Kaushik .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
(6) CWP-902-2021
Anar Singh Tehlan .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
(7) CWP-904-2021
Yogesh Kumar Sharma .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
(8) CWP-916-2021
Mahabir Singh .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
(9) CWP-924-2021
Nirmal Devi .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
2 of 6
(10) CWP-920-2021
Sudha Sachdeva and others .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana .. Respondent
(11) CWP-1315-2021
Madan Lal Kalra .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana through its Additional Chief Secretary, Government
of Haryana .. Respondent
(12) CWP-1323-2021
Veer Bhan Mehta .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana through its Additional Chief Secretary, Government
of Haryana .. Respondent
(13) CWP-1799-2021
Pushkar Mal Verma .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
3 of 6
(14) CWP-1743-2021
Sangeeta .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
(15) CWP-1794-2021
Kanta Sharma and another .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana .. Respondent
(16) CWP-8196-2021
Maman Chand Sharma .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate and
Mr. Akhilesh Barak, Advocate, for the petitioner(s)
in CWP Nos. 855, 881 to 884, 902, 904, 916 and 924 of 2021.
Mr. Arjun Partap Atma Ram, Advocate, with
Mr. Bhagoti Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioners in CWP No.920-2021.
Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s)
in CWP Nos. 1315 and 1323 of 2021.
Mr. R.K. Doon, Advocate, for the petitioner,
in CWP No.1743 of 2021.
4 of 6
Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate, for the petitioners,
in CWP No.1794 of 2021.
Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate, for the petitioner,
in CWP No.1799 of 2021.
None for the petitioner in CWP No.8196-2021.
Mr. Jagbir Malik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. Harneet Singh Oberoi, Advocate, for respondent No.3,
in CWP No.855 of 2021.
Mr. A.P.S. Sekhon, Advocate, for respondent No.3,
in CWP No. 881 of 2021.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
By this common order, sixteen writ petitions, the details of
which have been given in the heading of the order, are being disposed of as
the similar question of law is raised in these petitions.
Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submits that the impugned order, which has been passed by the respondents
by invoking the Rule 2.2 A of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume II, is
contrary to the said rule itself as the said rule does not give power to the
respondents-State to withhold the complete pension of an employee even
after conviction. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submits
that even while passing the order, a consideration has to be given upon the
role of an employee, as detailed in the order of conviction.
Learned senior counsel relies upon the judgment of this Court
in CWP No.24736 of 2017 titled as Prem Chand Dhand versus State of
Punjab and another, decided on 01.12.2018, wherein, Rule 2.2 A has been
interpreted to mean that the department, even on a conviction after the
5 of 6
retirement, does not have power to withhold the 100% pension of an
employee.
Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that he has instructions to submit that the impugned orders in the
present petitions be treated as withdrawn with liberty to pass a fresh order in
accordance with law and in case, the petitioners pray for the grant of
personal hearing, the same will also be given to the petitioners while
passing a fresh order.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that as the
impugned orders have been withdrawn by the respondents with liberty to
pass a fresh order, the present petitions may kindly be disposed of having
been not pressed any further as no grievance of the petitioners survives in
the present petitions as of now.
Ordered accordingly.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other
connected cases.
May 25, 2022 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
6 of 6
