IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Namit Kumar, J.
Bahadur Singh – Appellant
Versus
P.R.T.C. – Respondent
CWP No. 15609 of 1999
Decided On : 29-07-2024
Retrospective - Retirement - Articles 226/227 - The court emphasized that termination or retirement cannot be applied retroactively, protecting employees' rights and benefits accrued during service, leading to the decision to set aside the retrospective retirement order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a retrospective retirement order claiming his date of birth was incorrectly recorded, which led to his premature retirement. He argued that the order violated principles of natural justice and relevant legal precedents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the retrospective retirement was unlawful as it deprived the petitioner of benefits accrued during his service. The court upheld the principle that termination cannot be backdated.
Issues: Whether the retrospective retirement of the petitioner was lawful and in accordance with established legal principles regarding employee rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an employer cannot retire an employee retrospectively, as it violates the employee's rights and benefits earned during service.
Result: The retrospective retirement order was set aside, and the petitioner was deemed to have retired on the date of the order.
JUDGMENT :
Namit Kumar J.
1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for claiming the following reliefs:
“(i) to call for the complete record of the case.
(ii) to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction especially in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order, dated 08.06.1995 (Annexure P-3) passed by the respondent No. 2 vide which the petitioner has been retired retrospectively w.e.f. 31.12.1994, on the plea that the date of birth of the petitioner should have been December, 1936 instead of 20.07.1938 as entered in his Service Book and the appeal filed by the petitioner before Respondent No. 1 which has been rejected vide order dated 09.08.1999 (Annexure P-7) which is in violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Orissa vs. Dr. (Miss) Bina Pani De, AIR 1967 SC 1269 against the principle of natural justice and without holding an enquiry and also in view of the fact that the petitioner cannot be retired retrospectively vide order dated 08.06.1995 (P-1) w.e.f. 31.12.1994 as the petitioner had worked till 08.06.1995 as Driver with the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation which is in violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court as the order of retirement of the petitioner cannot be issued retrospectively, which is being arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal.
(iii) It is further prayed that writ of Mandamus be issued to the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for superannuation w.e.f. 31.07.1996 instead of 31.12.1994 as the entry of the date of birth of the petitioner in his service book is 20.7.1938 and the petitioner cannot be retired w.e.f. 20.07.1938 and the petitioner cannot be retired w.e.f. 31.12.1994 retrospectively vide order dated 8.6.95 (Annexure P-3) on the plea that date of birth of the petitioner should have been December, 1936 as the petitioner was issued Driving License LTV/HTV/MTV in December, 1956 and thus his Date of Birth should have been December, 1936 whereas the date of birth entered in his service book is 20.07.1938 which cannot be changed by the respondents at the fag end of his service and also in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in various judgments and also to grant the revised pensionary benefits to the petitioner i.e. pension, gratuity and leave encashment, group insurance, commutation of pension, etc. superannuating the petitioner w.e.f. 31.7.96 (A.N.) instead of w.e.f. 31.12.1994.”
2. The brief facts, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioner had worked as a Cleaner/Helper with various transport companies and later on, he applied for a Driving License while he was working in a transport company at Calcutta and was issued Driving License No. D/No. 18000/Cal/56-57 of LTV/MTV/HTV from RAC/MV Calcutta and the Driving License of the petitioner was renewed from time to time, when he attained the age of 20 years for driving Heavy Transport Vehicle i.e. Trucks and Buses. The petitioner while he was working at PRTC Ludhiana Depot, Ludhiana, got his license renewed from the Licensing Authority, Motor Vehicles, Ludhiana on 05.12.1996, which was renewed upto 01.09.1997. It has further been pleaded that there were vacancies of Bus Drivers in PRTC and petitioner applied for one of the post of Bus Driver as he fulfilled the requisite qualification and he appeared for the driving test, which was followed by interview and finally, petitioner was selected and appointed as Bus Driver in PRTC, Patiala and joined his services on 01.09.1970 as Bus Driver at the age of 32 years and was allotted Driver No. 497 and his date of birth was recorded in his service book as 20.07.1938 and he was to be superannuated on 31.07.1996 on attaining the age of 58 years but he was retired vide impugned order dated 08.06.1995 w.e.f. 31.12.1994 retrospectively on the assumption that his date of birth should have been December, 1936 because the Driving License for heavy vehicle
P.D. Goel vs. High Court of Himachal Pradesh through its Registrar General
AI
Retrospective retirement orders are unlawful as they infringe on employees' accrued rights and benefits.
Retirement benefits are calculated based on the official retirement date, even if employment continued under interim orders beyond that date.
Tampering with age records to gain employment advantage invalidates claims to continued service; retirement at correct age does not breach natural justice.
Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited, and penalties may only be modified if deemed shockingly disproportionate to proven misconduct.
Date of birth declared at service entry is conclusive unless corrected within two years; belated claims with certificates obtained just before superannuation after nearly 20 years not permissible.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.