SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(SC) 508

2006(4) Supreme 305
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
S.B. Sinha & P.P. Naolekar, JJ.
State of Punjab and Anr.—Appellants
versus
H.B. Malhotra—Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 5025-5026 of 2005
Decided on 12-5-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Ms. Kawaljit Koohar, D. Jha, Advocate for Arun K. Sinha, Advocate.
Respondent-in-person (NP)

Headnote:SERVICE LAW—Punjab Civil Service Rules, 1969—Rule 592—Voluntary retirement from service—Non-payment of retiral benefits—During pendency of disciplinary proceedings, respondent expressed his intention to retire voluntarily which was accepted and disciplinary proceedings were dropped—Writ petition was filed on non-payment of retiral benefits—High Court allowed the writ directing appellant State to release all retiral benefits—Appeal—Contention that respondent did not satisfy mandatory provision of Rule 592 for grant of retiral benefits—Head of Department himself had made a representation in Court that he would look into the matter and pass appropriate order—Appellant No.2 passed the order accepting voluntary retirement—Not only no action was taken but order was allowed to be passed by High Court without any endeavour to get purported mistake corrected—State was bound to pay retiral benefits pursuant to order made by High Court.

       Held : We have noticed hereinbefore that a voluntary statement was made by appellant No.2 and the High Court proceeded on that basis. We also do not find that any contention was raised before the High Court that in terms of the extent rules the respondent was not entitled to pension and/or other retiral benefits. It has not been explained before the High Court or for that matter before us, as to why no action was taken on the offer made by the respondent and why the disciplinary proceedings had been dropped. If the disciplinary proceedings as against the respondent were dropped and that the offer of voluntary retirement had not been accepted, he would be deemed to be continuing in service till he reached the age of superannuation; the logical consequence whereof could be that he would be entitled to the full retiral benefits which were payable to him in accordance with law. The State, therefore, will have to pay the retiral benefits to which the respondent was entitled to pursuant to or in furtherance of the offer made by it before the High Court.(Para 11)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—The State of Punjab is before us being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 2.2.2004 passed in C.W.P. No.14907/2002 as also the order dated 23.7.2004 passed in R.A. No. 119/2004 in C.W.P. No. 14907/2002, whereby and whereunder it refused to review the said orders.

2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.

The respondent herein was an employee of the State of Punjab. A disciplinary proceedings is said to have been initiated against him. During the pendency of the said proceedings he expressed his intention to retire voluntarily from the services on account of his health problems. Accepting the said offer, the said disciplinary proceeding was dropped. The respondent, however, was not paid his retiral benefits. He filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which was marked as C.W.P. No. 14907/2002. The High Court on 24.7.2003, passed the following order:

“Mr. Karan Singh, Director, Public Relations, Government of Punjab is present in Court. He has assured the court that he would look into the matter personally and pass appropriate order as expeditiously as possible and would also keep in mind the sickness of the petitioner.

At request adjourned to 25.9.2003.”

3. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said order the Director, Information & Public Relations, Punjab, by an order dated 18.9.2003 accepted the respondent’s offer for voluntary retirement from service w.e.f. 5.6.1969 (A.N.) stating:

“The disciplinary proceedings have been ordered to be dropped vide order No. OR (Estt.1) 03/6412-14 dated 22.9.2003 keeping in view his old age and efflux of time in deciding the issue. He never joined duty after proceeding on leave on 6.6.1969 as such the date on which he last attended the office is to be construed as his last day of working in the Department i.e. 5.6.1969. Consequently complaint orders are passed for voluntary retirement from service w.e.f. 5.6.1969 (A.N.) as per his request dated 21.11.1969.”

4. On February 2, 2004, the High Court passed the impugned order directing:

“Despite the fact that the aforesaid order was passed on 18.9.2003, learned counsel for the respondents acknowledge that no payment has been made to the petitioner. He further states that the petitioner himself had made a request that his retiral benefits be deposited in the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund.

It stands acknowledge that no payment has been made to the petitioner till date primarily on account of the fact that pension papers have not been signed by the petitioner.

In view of the above, the respondents are directed to have the pension papers signed by the petitioner within one week from today. Keeping in account his advanced age, the respondents are requested to get the papers signed from the petitioner by not requiring him to attend the office. Having got the papers signed the respondents are directed to release all retiral benefits including pension etc. to the petitioner within four weeks from today. Pensionary benefits shall, however, be limited to a period of three years and two months preceding the date of filing of the writ petition. We also hereby clarify that the instant writ petition was filed on 13.9.2002.”

5. A review application, supported by an affidavit affirmed by the Director, Information & Public Relations, Punjab, was filed in the High Court alleging that the respondent herein did not satisfy the mandatory provisions of Rule 592 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, 1969, for grant of retiral benefits to him, which were, in any event, not applicable in the case of the respondent. The said review application was also dismissed by the High Court holding:

“It is not a matter of dispute that the non-applicant petitioner did not discharge duties w.e.f 23.4.1969, no action under Punjab Civil Service Rules, was taken against him although a department enquiry was commended against him which we were informed, was later on dropped suo motu. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are sa











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top