High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Naresh Chander Sharma And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 December, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naresh Chander Sharma And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 December, 2009
C.W.P. No. 19682 of 2009
                                                                         -1-

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH

                                          C.W.P. No. 19682 of 2009
                                          Date of decision: 18.12.2009

Naresh Chander Sharma and another
                                                              ....Petitioners
                      Versus

State of Haryana and others
                                                            ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA

Present: - None.

                      *****

VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL)

The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court

to seek a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the

retiral benefits of the petitioners.

The case of the petitioners is, that petitioners No. 1 and 2

retired from service on 31.11.2005 and 6.2.2006, respectively, on

attaining the age of superannuation. However, their retiral benefits like

gratuity, leave encashment and group insurance scheme etc. as per rules,

have not been released in spite of number of representations and demand

notices. It is further the case of the petitioners, that before approaching

this Court legal notice was issued by the petitioners on 22.8.2008, but no

reply to the legal notice has been sent so far.

Without going into the merits of the case at present, this Court

feels that interest of justice would be served if respondents No. 4 and 5

are directed to take decision on the claim, raised in the legal notice,

within three months of the receipt of certified copy of this order.
C.W.P. No. 19682 of 2009
-2-

“Ordered accordingly.”

In case, the claim is to be rejected the respondents shall pass

speaking order giving reasons for rejection and, in case, the petitioners

are held entitled to retiral benefits, the same be paid forthwith, preferably

within two months of the passing of order on the legal notice.

(Vinod K. Sharma)
Judge
December 18, 2009
R.S.