BEHARI LAL Vs. COMMANDANT ORDNANCE DEPOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was filed in the year 1983. Rule was issued on 23.2.1984. Petitioner had filed CM. 1462/1999 for early hearing. This application was allowed vide order dated 19.2.1999 and matter was directed to be listed for final hearing on 17.5.1999 at the end of the list in "After Notice Misc. Matters". It was also directed that written submissions be filed within four weeks. On 17.5.1999 the case was adjourned for 16.7.199.9. When case came up for hearing there was no representation on behalf of the respondent although the matter was called out twice. Written submissions have been filed by the petitioner but respondent has not filed any written submissions. As noted at subsequent stages, the matter is short and involves dispute of petty nature. Petitioner is about 80 years of age and, therefore, it is not proper to keep the matter pending. Accordingly, Counsel for the petitioner was heard.

(2.) The petitioner retired as Office Superintendent in the Ordnance Depot, Ministry of Defence, Shakurbasti, Delhi in March, 1977 on attaining superannuation. It is the case of the petitioner that due to economic difficulties he took up employment as canteen supervisor w.e.f. 12.12.1978 vide letter No. 3988/K/ADM dated 12.12.1978. A perusal of letter dated 12.12.1978 would show that he was appointed on casual basis for a period of three months in the first instance which was continued even thereafter. It is further stipulated that he would be required to carry out duties as per "standing orders of Workers Canteen" and entrusted by OI/C Workers Canteen from time-to-time. Thus it is the case of the petitioner that as per his appointment letter he was governed by standing orders of workers canteen. Rule 20 of the said standing orders is reproduced:

(3.) As per aforesaid rule he could continue till the age of 62 years subject to fitness and thereafter he could be granted extension to the maximum extent of three years subject to fitness medically and functionally. The petitioner continued to work pursuant to his appointment order dated 12.12.1978 even after three months and completed the age of 62 years on 9.3.1981. The respondent granted him extension for further three years in terms of Rule 20 (supra) vide Daily Order Part-11 No. 3/Canteen/81 dated 16.3.1981 w.e.f. 10.3.1981. The relevant portion of order dated 16.3.1981 reads as under :