OM PARKASH vs PUNJAB STATE POWER CORP LTD AND ANR — CWP/29464/2017
Case under No Acts Defined. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 12th May 2026.
CNR: PHHC010995412017
Next Hearing
21st December 2017
Filing Number
CWP/29464/2017
Filing Date
19-12-2017
Registration No
CWP/29464/2017
Registration Date
20-12-2017
Judge
MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Coram
MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Bench Type
Single
Category
20.5 - SC OSB (PUNJAB) RETIRAL BENEFITS ( 467 )
Sub-Category
( 944 )
Judicial Branch
WRITS -I BRANCH
Decision Date
12th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
OM PARKASH
Adv. ALISHA ARORA
Respondent(s)
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORP LTD AND ANR
Hearing History
Judge: MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-12-2017 | |
| 19-09-2018 | |
| 06-04-2018 |
Orders
MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
MR JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Summary of CWP-29464-2017 (Om Parkash v. Punjab State Power Corp Ltd) The High Court dismissed Om Parkash's petition seeking gratuity with 18% interest and pension regularization. Parkash, convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act in 2005, was denied full retirement benefits when retiring in 2009; though a civil suit in 2014 partly succeeded in securing 66.67% provisional pension, gratuity remained withheld pending appeal conclusion. The Court held Parkash's substantial delay in submitting the conviction judgment (until October 2018) was inexcusable, attributable solely to him rather than the employer, precluding interest claims. Furthermore, the petition itself was barred by delay and laches, having been filed years after retirement without compelling justification, invoking the principle that "delay defeats equity" and discretionary writ remedies cannot be enforced after unreasonable delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of CWP-29464-2017 (Om Parkash v. Punjab State Power Corp Ltd) The High Court dismissed Om Parkash's petition seeking gratuity with 18% interest and pension regularization. Parkash, convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act in 2005, was denied full retirement benefits when retiring in 2009; though a civil suit in 2014 partly succeeded in securing 66.67% provisional pension, gratuity remained withheld pending appeal conclusion. The Court held Parkash's substantial delay in submitting the conviction judgment (until October 2018) was inexcusable, attributable solely to him rather than the employer, precluding interest claims. Furthermore, the petition itself was barred by delay and laches, having been filed years after retirement without compelling justification, invoking the principle that "delay defeats equity" and discretionary writ remedies cannot be enforced after unreasonable delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts