TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | ChinaUnited StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
News Columns | Straight DriveCanada CallingLondon LetterKashmir AngleJammu JournalInside the CapitalHimachal CallingHill View
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Allow ’92 absorption policy benefits to retrenched staffers, HC tells govt

Says rightful claim cannot be denied

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

More than a quarter century after the retrenchment of employees of the erstwhile Punjab State Leather Development Corporation came under judicial scrutiny, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed Punjab to extend the benefits of its April 20, 1992, absorption policy to them.

Advertisement

The Bench held that their “rightful claim cannot be denied” by a subsequent amendment to the policy. The writ petition had been pending since 1999. The verdict was pronounced by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar.

Advertisement

The petitioners had moved the court seeking directions to be absorbed in government departments, boards or corporations “on the same terms and conditions” as their juniors and seniors who had already been adjusted, and to withdraw the Golden Handshake Scheme offered at the time of winding up.

Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocate GS Bal argued that the winding up of the corporation was decided on June 13, 1992, and the process began in 1993, when employees with the requisite qualifications were considered for absorption elsewhere under the 1992 policy.

He said while juniors and seniors alike were adjusted, the petitioners, retained temporarily to assist in the winding up, were arbitrarily excluded.

Advertisement

The state and other respondents argued that the 1992 policy was amended on March 13, 1995, to cover only government employees. Justice Brar observed: “There is no doubt that at the time of retrenchment of the petitioners, the policy contained in the letter dated April 20, 1992, was operative. As such, rightful claim of the petitioners cannot be denied by amending the policy… when the decision of retrenchment was taken.”

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement