STATE OF HARYANA Vs. BABU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 19-7-2002 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 6-1-1964 to 31-1-1979. 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. 23-4-1979. On 9-3-1996, 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 18-6-1996. 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 :-

(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.