Hira Lal Karakara vs State of Punjab

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(P&H) 957

NAMIT KUMAR
Hira Lal Karakara – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
Ms. Suman Kumari, Advocate for Ms. Snigdha Sood, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Ms. Arundhati Kulshreshtha, A.A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Rohit Singla, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Aditya Pratap Duggal, Advocate for Respondent No.3

JUDGMENT

Mr. Namit Kumar, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the retrial benefits of the petitioner along with interest @ 18% per annum.

2. Brief facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk/Junior in Municipal Corporation, Abohar and worked from 29.10.1993 to 11.09.2014 and 06.11.2014 to 17.03.2016. Thereafter, he was posted as Junior Assistant at Goniana Mandi, District Bathinda. On attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired from service on 31.10.2022. When the retrial dues of the petitioner were not released, he made various representations dated 07.11.2022, 15.11.2022, 23.11.2022 and 30.11.2022 to the respondents for releasing his retrial dues but to no avail. Hence this petition.

3. Pursuant to notice of motion, reply on behalf of respondent No.2 has been filed in the Court which is taken on record. In the said reply, it has been averred as under :-

"xx xx xx xx xx

6. That it is further submitted here that after the retirement of the petitioner, the an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document