DEV RAJ Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a retiree from the respondent - corporation. Precisely he seeks the relief for the release of his retiral benefits and also difference between pre -revised and revised salary w.e.f. 1.1.2006 to 31.3.2011. The petitioner was Chief Accounts Officer in the respondent -corporation and retired on 30.9.2012. He has been striving hard to get retiral benefits but the respondent -corporation was insensitive and turned deaf ears even towards his representations and even did not respond.

(2.) IN other similar matter, the respondent corporation had highlighted their financial difficulties till they are bailed out by some package by the respondent -State. The contentions so Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? raised stood rejected in CWP No. 2937 of 2009 decided on 6.12.2010 titled Veer Singh Chauhan versus H.P. Agro . Industries Corp. Ltd. and another, it was observed that it is not for this Court to direct the State to give financial package to a sick Corporation. Even the Principal Division Bench in Rajinder Singh Jishtu versus State of H.P. & Ors CWP No. 455 of 2011 along with seven other connected matters took note of the situation but however, rejected the plea of the respondent - corporation and granted similar relief sought. In that petition, the respondent corporation also moved an application CMP No. 9871 of 2011 seeking extension of time for complying the judgment which was allowed vide order dated 2.12.2011.

(3.) WITH these directions/observations, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti.