The period of suspension should count as qualifying service unless expressly declared otherwise by the competent authority, and the petitioner was entitled to pension proportionate to the service rendered.

SURESH KAIT, J.

1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside the order/letter dated 10th June, 2011 issued by the respondent. Consequently, the respondent be directed to pay pension to the petitioner as per the norm/rule from 4th July, 2009 with interest @ 15% per annum.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined as LDC on 12.03.1997 with the respondent. Vide order dated 16.03.2004, he was put under suspension by the respondent. Vide order dated 04.07.2009, the respondent imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner by passing the following order:-

“Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, the undersigned considers it fit that a penalty of Compulsory Retirement will meet the ends of justice.

Now, therefore, the undersigned in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 15(3) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 hereby imposes a penalty of Compulsory Retirement upon the said Sh.Sanjeev Verma, Ahlmad/LDC with immediate effect.

Sh.Sanjeev Verma, LDC was suspended vide order dated 16.03.2004. The said order of suspension is hereby lifted. It is ordered that he will not receive any benefits more than what he had already received during the period of suspension.”

3. On 10.12.2010, when petitioner submitted the pension form and the same was denied by the respondent, thereafter, he filed a petition being W.P.(C) No. 1408/2011. The same was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide its orders dated 04.03.2011 holding as under:-

“5. …………………..We may record here that this aspect was raised before the Appellate Authority as well and the Appellate Authority stated, while rejecting the appeal of the appellant, that when the petitioner had given up his challenge to the findings of the Inquiry Officer and had rather prayed for a lenient view, the order of the Disciplinary Authority did not suffer from any infirmity. We are quite in agreement with the aforesaid view taken by the Appellate Authority. It is also recorded by the Appellate Authority that the petitioner had failed to disclose any bias or prejudice of the Disciplinary Authority against the petitioner as to why such an admission would be recorded by the Disciplinary Authority in the impugned order.”

4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted before the Division Bench that the order of compulsory retirement was passed on 04.07.2009, the terminal dues of the petitioner were not settled by that time though he had fulfilled all the formalities.

5. Finding force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, the Division Bench of this Court directed the Disciplinary Authority to calculate the terminal dues, which were payable to the petitioner under different heads with a direction to examine as to whether the petitioner was entitled to pension having regard to the number of years of service put by him. Order in this regard was to be passed within a period of two weeks from the date of the said order and the terminal dues were directed to be paid within four weeks thereafter.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Senior Accounts Officer, who is not the competent authority, sent a communication dated 10.06.2011 regarding pension to the petitioner. The same reads as under:-

“In continuation of Letter no.16702-I/Pension/Acctts./2011 dated 31.05.2011 I am directed to inform you that as per Swamy’s CCS Pension rule no.49(b), “In case of Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules before completing qualifying service of thirty-three years, but after completing qualifying service of ten years, the amount of pension shall be proportionate to the amount of pension admissible under clause (a)” and According to Swamy’s Pension Rules Made Easy, Chapter 6, Pension and Gratuity, “A Government servant who retires from service with a qualifying service of less than ten years is not entitled for the pay