RAJINDER SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the counsel for the petitioners and with his assistance gone through the records of this case.

(2.) The petitioners through this writ petition have challenged the orders of retrenchment annexures P-1 to P-7 passed by the Management against each one of the petitioners vide which their services were retrenched. Before we deal with this submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it will be appropriate for us to reproduced the relevant portion of the retrenchment order which we are taking from annexure P-1. It reads as under :-

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners invites our attention to Regulation 35B and submits that as per this Regulation, the Management was supposed to pay 30 days wages by way of retrenchment compensation for each completed year of service or a part thereof in excess of 6 months, whereas it has only granted 15 days wages and in these circumstances, the impugned orders annexures P-1 to P-7 qua the petitioners are bad and illegal.