JUDGMENT

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.:—The appellant was working as Superintendent in the Military Engineering Service at Chandigarh. On November 16, 1964, he made a complaint addressing a letter to the Engineer In-charge, Army Headquarters, New Delhi, that a certain contractor who was given the work of construction of roads at Lalru was not doing the job according to specifications but instead of action being taken against him the matter was being hushed up. On December 24, 1964, the Chief Engineer, Western Command, Simla, passed an order transferring the appellant from CWE Chandigarh to CE, Delhi and Rajasthan Zone, Delhi Cantt. The order was required to be complied forthwith. On January 8, 1965, the appellant submitted a representation to the Chief Engineer requesting the cancellation of the order of transfer as he had two daughters studying at Chandigarh, one in a College and the other in a School. On February 6, 1965, he sought a personal interview and followed it up with further representations on February 19, 1965 and February 23, 1965. In the letter dated February 23, 1965, he mentioned that if it was not possible for him to be retained at Chandigarh he might be granted leave preparatory to retirement. Meanwhile on February 13, 1965, the Chief Engineer, North Western Zone addressed a communication to the Chief Engineer, Western Command that the appellant had been struck off the strength, that the appellants action showed indiscipline and that it should be reflected in his report. On June 10, 1965, the appellant wrote to the Chief Engineer, Delhi and Rajasthan Zone that he was not willing to accept any movement order and that he had applied for leave preparatory to retirement as his circumstances did not permit him to continue in service any further. On September 16, 1965 the Chief Engineer, Western Command informed the Engineer-in-Chief that disciplinary action should be initiated against the appellant. On January 29, 1966, the Chief Engineer, Delhi and Rajasthan Zone wrote to the appellant informing him that under Art. 189 of the Civil Services Regulations he no longer had any lien on his appointment and advising him in his own interest, to resume duty by February 15th, at least. To this the appellant sent a reply on March 1, 1966, stating that as a consequence of his letter dated June 10, 1965, he must be considered to have retired on October 9, 1965. Apparently the appellant was construing his letter dated June 10, 1965 as notice to the Government of his desire to retire from service and, further, he was also under the impression that four months notice was necessary. Thereafter on May 30, 1966, the Chief Engineer Western Command addressed a communication to the Chief Engineer, Delhi and Rajasthan Zone, paragraph 4 of which is important and is as follows :

"Since Shri Dayal Saran attained the age of superannuation on 14th May, 1966, it is no use to pursue the disciplinary aspect of the case any more. He should, however, be informed that since he ceased to hold any lien on his permanent appointment in terms of Article 189 Civil Service Regulations, he is not entitled to any pension under the Rules, The formation concerned should be directed to publish the event of his having lost the lien on the permanent appointment in his part II orders."

There were then several letters form the appellant demanding payment of pension and gratuity. On November 22, 1966 the Chief Engineer, Western Command, wrote to the Engineer-in-Chief, Army Headquarters, New Delhi, communicating his decision on the representation of the appellant. After narrating the events it was finally said:

"It will be realised from the foregoing that Shri Dayal Saran did not retire from service after giving due notice to the Deptt. but on the other hand failed to join his new appointment within his joining time in spite of reminders. He thus ceased to have a lien on any appointment in terms of Art. 189 CSR". The appellant thereupon filed a Writ Petition in the High Court