MANGAL RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is an ex-peon through this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has sought direction to respondent No. 1 to decide and release his Gratuity and Pension.

(2.) In brief, the case of the petitioner is that he has been discharging his duties diligently and efficiently. Neither any adverse remarks were conveyed nor there was any complaint against him. All of a sudden on 28.2.1977, respondent No. 4 without assigning any reason and issuing any notice whatsoever terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that he was medically unfit and it was case of invalid retirement. It is averred in the writ petition that respondent No. 4 was interested in adjusting, somebody on the post which the petitioner was occupying. On receiving the orders of premature retirement and that too on the medical grounds, the petitioner made a representation requesting for finalisation of his case for gratuity and pension besides other benefits. It has been further averred that on the aforesaid representation of the petitioner, the Office of the Director Education, respondent No. 2 sent a communication to the District Education Officer stating therein that the petitioner had since been retired on medical grounds and as such he be got medically examined and in case he was found unfit, invalidating certificate be issued enabling him to finalise the petitioner's claim for gratuity and pension.

(3.) On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is that the petitioner has sought retirement voluntarily at his own will and no coercion was exercised on him. The matter regarding voluntary retirement was examined by the Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Palwal on 14.2.1981. At the time of enquiry, the petitioner himself admitted that he sought voluntary retirement in February. 1977. It was denied by the respondents that they were interested to adjust somebody in place of the petitioner. The vacancy caused by the retirement of the petitioner was filled through the Employment Exchange on merit. It is averred in the written statement that the petitioner's case for grant of pension and gratuity was sent to Accountant General, Haryana, by respondent No. 4, but the former desired that petitioner's retirement orders be issued and sent to his office (A.G.'s office). It was further desired by the A.G. Haryana that if the petitioner was retired on medical grounds, an invalidity certificate be sent to him. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Chief Medical Officer, Faridabad, who declared him medically and physically fit as per Annexure P-3. The petitioner's case for the grant of pension was considered by the competent authority and the same was rejected as he had not completed the requisite length of qualifying service for the grant of pension.