IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 13105 of 2008 Date of Decision: February 25 , 2009 Mukhtiar Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr.Parveen Kumar Rohilla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee,Senior DAG, Haryana. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. The petitioner was dismissed from service. The solitary contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that while passing the dismissal order the mandatory requirement of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules viz. the claim of the petitioner for pension and the length of his service have not been shown to have been considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is not claiming that he should be taken back in service but his limited claim is for consideration of his case for compulsory retirement so that his 15 years service does not go waste. The only caveat which learned counsel for the respondents has put is that if the impugned order is quashed the petitioner shall be entitled to all CWP No. 13105 of 2008 -2- consequential benefits. In the circumstances the revisional order dated 24.02.208 (Annexure P-7) is set aside. The matter is remanded to the revisional authority to consider this aspect of the matter by passing a fresh speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE February 25, 2009 sunita