2007 (11) TMI 589 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether 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.?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to pension benefits under Rule 6.16(2) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1952.
2. Validity of the acceptance of voluntary retirement.
3. Allegations of interpolation and fabrication of documents.
4. Jurisdiction and maintainability of the application under Section 151 CPC after the writ petition was dismissed.
5. Applicability of precedents cited by the respondent.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Pension Benefits under Rule 6.16(2) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1952:
The respondent claimed pension benefits under Rule 6.16(2) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1952, arguing that he had completed more than ten years of service. The High Court initially directed the appellants to pay the pension, but the Supreme Court found that the respondent's service conditions were governed by Rule 5.32-B, which requires twenty years of qualifying service for voluntary retirement. The Supreme Court concluded that the respondent did not meet this requirement and thus was not entitled to pension under Rule 6.16(2).

2. Validity of the Acceptance of Voluntary Retirement:
The respondent's voluntary retirement was accepted by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Faridabad. The High Court had earlier found that the respondent's application for voluntary retirement did not include a condition regarding pension entitlement, and the acceptance of his retirement was valid. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that the respondent's plea for reinstatement to complete twenty years of service was inconsistent with his earlier unconditional retirement request.

3. Allegations of Interpolation and Fabrication of Documents:
The High Court found that the respondent had fabricated documents to support his claim for conditional voluntary retirement. The Supreme Court agreed with this finding, emphasizing that the respondent's conduct in producing fabricated documents was highly contumacious and warranted the imposition of costs.

4. Jurisdiction and Maintainability of the Application under Section 151 CPC:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had become functus officio after dismissing the first writ petition with costs for the respondent's contumacious conduct. Therefore, the subsequent application under Section 151 CPC was not maintainable. The Supreme Court cited the principle that once proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution are terminated, they cannot be reopened by a miscellaneous application, as established in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Dutt Sharma.

5. Applicability of Precedents Cited by the Respondent:
The respondent cited several precedents from the Punjab and Haryana High Court to support his claim for pension. However, the Supreme Court found that these decisions were based on the specific facts of those cases and did not establish a binding precedent applicable to the respondent's situation. The Supreme Court emphasized that the respondent's case was governed by the specific provisions of the PCS Rules, which required twenty years of qualifying service for voluntary retirement.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order directing the appellants to pay pension to the respondent. The Supreme Court held that the respondent was not entitled to pension benefits under the applicable rules, and the application under Section 151 CPC was not maintainable after the dismissal of the original writ petition. The appeal was allowed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.