Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vinod Kumar vs Principal Secretary, Government Of ... on 13 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036085
2024:PHHC:036085
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
138
CWP-5925-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 13.03.2024
Vinod Kumar
....Petitioner
Versus
Principal Secretary, Government of Punjab and Another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Puneet Jindal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. A.S. Chugh, Advocate for the petitioner
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J.
1. The present Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as regular employee and
accordingly to release the full pension and other retiral benefits.
2. Learned Senior counsel submits that the petitioner had rendered more
than 22 years of service as Line Superintendent (adhoc), having been appointed
through Employment Exchange, after conducting interview by the Departmental
Selection Board on 08.02.1993, Annexure P-1. Despite the fact that services of
those who were appointed along with the petitioner, have been regularised, but he
was left out even when there was a recommendation in his favour as well vide
letter dated 02.12.2005, Annexure P-7. However, instead of treating him at parity
with them, he was verbally made to retire to 31.10.2023. Reliance is placed on the
judgments passed by this Court in Kewal Singh vs. State of Punjab in CWP-
4867-2000 decided on 05.09.2002 and Indu Bala vs. State of Haryana in CWP-
866-2015, decided on 13.01.2017. Be that as it may, the petitioner is otherwise
also entitled to grant of pension, even if the services were not regularized, in terms
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036085
CWP-5925-2024 (O&M) -2-
of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat and
Others vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, 2022(1) S.C.T. 749. In this regard, a
representation dated 12.09.2023, Annexure P-10, has been submitted by him,
which has yet not evoked any response. He thus, at this stage, on instructions,
submits that the petitioner is sanguine of it being considered in a positive manner,
in case, a direction is given to the respondents to decide the same in a time bound
manner by granting him an opportunity of hearing.
3. Notice of motion.
4. At the asking of the Court, Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Addl. AG, Punjab
accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and has no objection to the
limited prayer made.
5. In view of the aforesaid and without commenting upon the merits of
the case, this petition is hereby disposed of with a direction to respondents to
consider and decide the representation dated 12.09.2023, Annexure P-10, taking
note of the aforesaid submissions as also the judgments as referred to above,
within a period of 4 months and if found entitled, necessary benefits be granted to
the petitioner forthwith. However, in the eventuality of the relief being denied, a
speaking order be passed, after associating him therewith.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
13.03.2024
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036085
2 of 2
