9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngh, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to serve the Roadways due to illness and adverse family conditions. In the said application, he did not incorporate the condition that his request may be accepted only if he was entitled to earn pension on the basis of total service. In the absence of such condition, unconditional acceptance of the petitioner s request for retirement cannot be nullified or invalidated on the ground that he had subsequently changed his mind. Otherwise also, we are not convinced with the petitioners plea that he was unaware of the limited benefit extended to him vide order dated 09.03.1987 (date of this order has been given as 09.11.1987 in the written statement filed by the respondents) which was passed by the respondent No.3 under the Punjab National Emergency Rules, 1965. A bare reading of that order shows that the military service rendered by the petitioner was counted only for the purpose of fixation of pay, seniority and increments and no other benefit was extended to him. Therefore, the petitioner cannot make any grievance against the acceptance of his request for voluntary retirement. As a logical corollary, it must be held that he cannot seek reinstatement merely because the Accountant Gen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 19.07.2002 and the appellants were directed to pay pension to the respondent within a period of three months. 8. Being aggrieved against the impugned order dated 19.07.2002, the State of Haryana through Secretary to the Government, Haryana Transport Department; (Appellant No.1), The Transport Commissioner, Haryana; (Appellant No.2), The General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Faridabad; (Appellant No.3) and the Accountant General, Haryana, (Appellant No.4) have filed this appeal by special leave. 9. We have heard Mr. P. S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate, and Mr. Manjit Singh, Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants and Mrs. Namita Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent in detail. 10. In the midst of the hearing of this appeal on 08.08.2007, this Court felt it necessary to summon the original record of application (CM No.10362/99 in CWP No.2890/97) from the Registry of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. On receipt of the original record, the parties were heard further. An argument advanced by Mr. Patwalia, Senior Advocate, before us was that after dismissing the first Writ Petition No.2890/97 filed by the respondent, with costs for the highly contumacious ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he services of the respondent were governed under PCS Rules. Chapter V of the PCS Rules Vol. II deals with different kinds of pensions. Rule 5.1 of Section I prescribes four classes of pensions, namely, (a) Compensation Pensions (See Section II); (b) Invalid Pensions (See Section III); (c) Superannuation Pensions (See Section IV) and (d) Retiring Pensions (See Section V). Rule 6.1 in Chapter VI deals with amount of pensions that may be granted to the employee on the basis of determination of length of service. In the case of the respondent, the rule for the grant of retiring pension is covered by Rule 5.32-B which reads as under:- 5.32-B. (1) At any time a Government employee has completed twenty years qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service. However, a Government employee may make a request in writing to the appointing authority to accept notice of less than three months giving reason therefor. On receipt of a request, the appointing authority may consider such request for the curtailment of the period of notice of three months on merits and if it is satisfied that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tified in extending the benefit of Rule 6.16(1) of the PCS Rules to the respondent. 16. As noticed above, the respondent has not chosen to seek the benefit of pension in terms of Rule 6.16 (2) of the PCS Rules Vol. I in the first writ petition No.2890/97, which was dismissed by the Division Bench with costs for the aforesaid reasons. In the said writ petition, second prayer made by the writ petitioner (respondent herein) was to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents-authorities (appellants herein) to take back the writ petitioner into service in order to complete 20 years qualifying service for the purpose of pension, gratuity, etc. This prayer of the writ petitioner would clearly indicate that his claim for the grant of pension in the case of voluntary retirement is squarely covered by Section 5.32-B of the PCS Rules and not under Rule 6.16(1) of the Rules as held by the High Court. Undisputedly, the respondent has not completed 20 years qualifying service before he sought voluntary retirement on 09.02.1997 and his request was accepted by the competent authority on 19.06.1996 with immediate effect. The Division Bench of the High Court in its order dated 31.08.1998 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nclusions. The possession of powers under Section 151, CPC, by the Courts, itself is not sufficient, it has to be exercised in accordance with law. The orders of the Courts must emanate logically from legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. 18. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Dutt Sharma Anr. [(1987) 2 SCC 179], this Court recorded a note of caution that 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. Paragraph 10 (page 187) of the decision reads as under:- 10. The High Court s order is not sustainable for yet another reason. Respondents writ petition challenging the order of dismissal had been finally disposed of on August 10, 1984, thereafter nothing remained pending before the High Court. No miscellaneous application could be filed in the writ petition to revive proceedings in respect of subsequent events after two years. If the respondent was aggrieved by the notice dated January 29, 1986 he could have filed a separate petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
