important point
When proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India stand terminated by final disposal of writ petition, it is not open to the Court to reopen the proceedings by means of a miscellaneous application.

JUDGMENT

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—

1.This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.07.2002 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CM No.10362/99 in CWP No.2890/97, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been directed to pay pension to Babu Singh by giving him benefit of Rule 6.16 (2) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1952 (Vol.-II Part-I) with further direction to do the needful within a period of three months from the date of submission of a certified copy of the order.

2.The necessary facts in brief may be stated as follows :

“Babu Singh, respondent herein, served the Indian Army as a Driver from 06.01.1964 to 31.01.1979. He was granted the benefit of pay fixation, seniority, increments etc. of the military service. After being discharged from Army service, the respondent was appointed as Driver in Haryana Roadways, Faridabad, w.e.f. 23.04.1979. On 09.03.1996, the respondent applied for voluntary retirement from service and his request was accepted by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Faridabad, who retired him from service vide Order dated 18.06.1996. Afterwards, the respondent made representation for reinstatement by contending that the General Manager, Haryana Roadways- appellant No.3 herein could not have accepted his conditional plea for voluntary retirement ignoring the fact that he will not be eligible to get pensionary benefits without counting military service. Having failed to receive any favourable decision from the appellants, the respondent filed Civil Writ Petition No.2890/97 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, inter alia, claiming the following reliefs :

“(i)issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 18.06.1996 being illegal and against the provisions of rules;

(ii)issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-authorities to take back the petitioner into service in order to complete 20 years qualifying service for the purpose of pension, gratuity, etc.;

(iii)issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case;

(iv)dispense with the filing of certified copies of annexures of this writ petition;

(v)dispense with the advance notice to the respondents of the writ petition; and

(vi)award the costs of this writ petition to the petitioner.”

3.The respondents in the writ petition, who are appellants before this Court, have contested and resisted the claim of the writ petitioner. They contended that as the respondent sought unconditional voluntary retirement, he was not entitled to get pension in view of the decision taken by the Accountant General, Haryana, appellant No.4 herein and conveyed vide communication dated 03.08.1996 to appellant No. 3.

4.During the commencement of the hearing of the said writ petition, the Deputy Advocate General of the State drew attention of the High Court to the original application submitted by the respondent in February 1996 seeking voluntary retirement from service and pointed out that the document produced as Annexure P-2 by the respondent along with the writ petition contained interpolation. It was submitted that the words “if the Government has got any such law that I can get pension under the benefit of ex-service, I may be given retirement” were not stated in the original application and those words had been added later on by the respondent in order to prove his plea that he sought conditional voluntary retirement. After hearing the learned counsel for the respondent on the issue of interpolation of the aforesaid words in the application, the High Court observed as under:

“In our opinion, the document Annexure P-2 purporting to be the true translation of the application submitted by the petitioner for making voluntary retirement has been fabricated by the petitioner in order to justify his plea that respondent No.3 should not have accepted his request without verifying his entitlement to