TEK CHAND, EX DRIVER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petition is admitted. It appears that since the controversy raised in the writ petition is covered by the decision of this Court, respondents have not filed the written statement. Mr. Kamal Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the respondents, however, asks for further time to file the written- statement but in our opinion, it is not necessary to adjourn the matter. By consent, petition placed on Board and called out for hearing.

(2.) Read the petition and in our opinion the relief claimed in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of this court dated September 24, 1993, in Civil Writ Petition No. 15088 of 1990 (Madan Lal and others vs. State of Haryana and others). Respondents are accordingly directed to give the benefits to the petitioner in terms of the decision of this Court in Madan Lal's case

(3.) The petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the respondents to compute the entire period of service of the petitioner including the service rendered by him in private organisation for determining his pensionary and superarmuatory benefits. There will be no order as to costs.