Hem Raj & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 15347 P&H

                                                      Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:117628




CWP No. 25502 of 2016                            2023:PHHC:117628
                                        1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

(209)                                       CWP No. 25502 of 2016
                                            Date of Decision : 06.09.2023

Hem Raj and another
                                                                    ...Petitioners

                                 Versus

State of Haryana and others
                                                                 ...Respondents


CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present:    Mr. Pankaj Mehta, Advocate for the petitioners.

            Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

            ***

Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)

The claim of the petitioners is that the services rendered by

the petitioners with the HSMITC prior to being absorbed in the

Department of Revenue, are liable to be taken in account for the grant of

ACP.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though, the

benefit of service rendered in the HSMITC is being claimed for the retiral

benefits as well but as the service rendered in the HSMITC is not

pensionable, the said claim is not being pressed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the question

of law whether, the service rendered in the HSMITC can be taken into

account for the grant of benefit of ACP, the same has already been

considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while passing order in

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:117628

CWP No. 25502 of 2016 2023:PHHC:117628

CWP No. 21423 of 2014 titled as Kalu Ram (Retired Patwari) & others

Vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 30.05.2016, where the said

benefit has already been extended to a similarly situated employee, who

was also absorbed in the Revenue Department after his initial service in

HSMITC, hence, the claim of the petitioner is squarely covered by the

judgment in Kalu Ram's case (supra).

Learned State counsel concedes the factum that Kalu Ram,

who was also working in the HSMITC before being absorbed in the

Department of Revenue, has been granted the said benefit by the Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court.

Keeping in view the above, the present petition is also

allowed in terms of Kalu Ram's case (supra) only for the purpose of

grant of ACP.

September 06, 2023                           (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan                                               JUDGE

            Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

            Whether reportable                : Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:117628

2 of 2