SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(P&H) 1688

M.M.KUMAR, M.M.S.BEDI
Sube Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent


Judgment

M. M. KUMAR, J.

1. Notice of motion. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, haryana, who is present in the Court accepts notice. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the writ petition has been heard. The prayer made in the petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the condition that the dearness Allowance be treated as Dearness Pay for the purposes of retirement Gratuity/death Gratuity under the relevant instructions dated 8.3.1996 (P-1 ). The matter is not res integra as this Court has already opined in favour of the petitioners in the judgments dated 23.9.2005 (P-2 ). The petitioners have already stake their claims by sending a legal notice on 19.2.2006 (P-3), which is pending consideration of the respondents and no decision on the same has so far been taken.

2. In view of above, we deem it just and appropriate to direct the respondents to take cognisance of the legal notice sent by the petitioners and decide the same expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented to them. If the claim of the petitioners is found to be meritorious and decided in their favour then the benefit accrui

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top