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

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
PARSHOTAM KUMAR AND ORS – Appellant
Versus
STATE TH.P.H.E.DEPTT.AND ORS – Respondent
SWP 454/2019



Item No. 37

Regular List

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

ATJAMMU

SWP No. 454/2019

[WP(C) No. 841/2019]

CM(3571/2019)

CM(1870/2019[01/2019])

Parshotam Kumar and ors.

.....Petitioner(s)

Through:- Petitioner Nos. 3 to 7 are present in

person.

V/s

State th. PHE Deptt and ors.

......Respondent(s)

Through:- Mr. Rajesh Thappa, Dy. AG vice

Mr. K. D. S. Kotwal, Dy. AG

Mr. Vishal Sharma, ASGI

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE

ORDER

1.

Petitioner Nos. 3 to 7, who are present in person, submit that this

Court has already decided the identical matters and pray for disposal

of the present case with the same directions and lines.

2.

Statments of the petitioners are taken on record.

3.

The petitioners submit that their case for grant of pension was under

process. However, the same has been sent back from the office of the

Accountant General to the State-respondents. It is submitted that the

respondents are ignoring the mandate contained in Regulation 242 of

the Civil Service Regulations (CSR). It is further stated that the

petitioners will feel satisfied in case while processing their case, the

aforementioned regulation would be considered by the respondents.

2 SWP No. 454/2019

4.

The petitioners have also produced the judgments/orders passed by

this Court in SWP Nos. 2598/2018, 2387/2018 and WP(C)

No. 3868/2019.

5.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the

respondents, particularly respondent No. 5 to consider the claim of

petitioners for settlement of their pension cases under rule, within a

period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order and

copies of judgments referred herein above is made available to him

by the petitioners against proper receipt. While considering the claim,

respondent No. 5 shall take note of the recommendations made by

respondents 1 to 4 as also the judgment rendered in SWP

No. 2387/2018 provided the petitioners are similarly situated with the

writ petitioners of the aforesaid petition.

6.

Disposed of.

(Tashi Rabstan)

Judge

JAMMU

04.12.2019

MEENAKSHI

MEENAKSHI DEVI

2019.12.07 12:45

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top