Last Updated on October 24, 2021 by Satish Mishra
Service Extension CAT Chandigarh Bench Case wherein court ordered to decide representation against UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION .
RANJNA KHOSLA V. UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION THROUGH ADVISOR TO ADMINSTRATOR, U.T. SECRETARIAT CHANDIGARH, 23rd December, 2020
Today we are going to talk about the case of Ranjna Khosla v. union territory Chandigarh administration and others, 23rd December, 2020. The advocate for the applicant side were Shri. R.K. Sharma and for the respondent side were Shri. Arvind Moudgil. The case was being held at Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench.
Also Read- extension in service after superannuation – Indian Kanoon
The case was about the extension of the service beyond the date of their retirement not given and due to that the case was being filed. The applicant retirement period came and then also she wants an extension of her period so she passed an application but no answer came from the education department regarding that. Now to state the facts and issues regarding the case they are as follows:
- The original application has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the administrative tribunals Act, 1985 seeking therein the following relief a) to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for extension in service for a period of one year, after the age of 58 years being state awardee, in terms of the government of Punjab on 25th April, 2020 read on 25th February, 2014 with all consequential benefits.
- Issued notice to the respondents and the applicant accepts notice on behalf of the respondents in this case. The learned council for the applicants, submitted that the applicant who was a state awardee was due for retirement on 31st December, 2020 after attaining the age of superannuation. The council submitted in view of the instructions dated on 25th February, 2014 and 25th April, 2020 hence, the applicant was entitled to get extension in service for a year beyond the date of her retirement.
Also Read- extension+in+service | India Judgments | Law | CaseMine
- Before filing the present original application, the applicant had submitted a representation on 30th June, 2020 before the respondents which was followed by one more representation on 15th December, 2020 making therein a request to grant her extension in service for a year beyond the date of her retirement that is on 31st December, 2020. However, the respondents have not taken any action over the said respondents.
- The learned council for the respondent side submitted that the applicant will be satisfied if a direction was issued to the respondents to decide her pending representations while keeping in view the instructions dated on 25th February, 2014 and 25th April, 2020 as well as a judgement rendered by this tribunal in the original application as Dharam Pal Sharma v. Chandigarh Administration and others.
Also Read- Contractual employees have no right to seek extension: CAT
- Keeping in view the aforesaid limited prayer made by the learned council for the applicant, they deem it appropriate to dispose of the present original application at the admission stage itself without entering into the merits of the case. Accordingly, the original application was disposed of with a direction to education secretary, union territory Chandigarh to decide the applicants pending representations made on 30th June, 2020 and 15th December, 2020 and pass a reasoned and speaking order while keeping in view the instructions dated on 25th February, 2020 and 25th April, 2020 as well as the judgement rendered by this tribunal in Dharam Pal Sharma.
- Since the applicant was due for retirement on 31st December, 2020 therefore an earnest effort shall be made by the education secretary, union territory Chandigarh to decide the applicant’s representation on or before 30th December, 2020. Before taking such a decision the applicant shall also be afforded an opportunity of hearing. The original application stands disposed of in the above terms. However, there shall be no orders so as to costs.
The policy of the government of Punjab regarding the retirement scheme and about its extension period are as follows:
Also Read- State Of Punjab vs Central Administrative Tribunal
CONCLUSION
The case was dealt in such a way that the justice should not be left undoubted. Because the applicant just wants an extension for a certain period of time but when no response came from the education department side then one has to prevail justice from somewhere and too by torturing mental agony and physical harassment of coming to the court and covering the Court fees too.
This post is written by Sammyak Jain.
For case specific advice, please contact Chandigarh Administrative Tribunal/Service Matter/Labour and Service/CAT/Legal Aid/Administrative/Senior/Service Employment Lawyers Advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur etc.
More on 99888-17966.
