SURJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petition is directed against the order dtd. 26/10/2012 (Annexure P-5) declining the claim of the petitioner as regards pension/pensionary benefits. Further vide the impugned order directions have been issued for recovery of salary paid to the petitioner for the period 1/7/1982 to 16/12/1994 by taking recourse as permissible in law.

(2.) Counsel submits that petitioner was appointed as a Driver under the Department of PWD (B&R), Punjab on 27/9/1972. He retired on 16/12/1994. By virtue of 22 years of service to his credit, petitioner could not have been denied pensionary benefits to which he was otherwise eligible under the relevant Civil Service Rules. Counsel further submits that in the impugned order it has been observed that in an affidavit submitted by the petitioner at the stage of joining service there has been some apparent over-writing as regards year of birth and there is confusion between the years 1934 andl939 but it is not clear whether such over-writing was done by the petitioner at the time of submitting of the affidavit or the same had been done subsequently in connivance with some staff members. Contention raised by counsel is that there is no evidence that has come on record to prove that there was any fraud/overwriting/any kind of mis-representation at the hands of the petitioner and as such the impugned order declining pensionary benefits cannot sustain. It has further been argued that the petitioner had actually worked on the post of Driver upto 16/12/1994 and in the absence of any fraud/misrepresentation, the salary already paid for the period 1/7/1982 to 16/12/1994 cannot be recovered. Yet another submission raised by counsel is that the petitioner has been made a victim of arbitrary action and has been dealt with unfairly. In this regard it is contended that after petitioner retired in 1994 a number of representations had been filed and the same having not evoked any response petitioner had filed CWP No.6781 of 2012 before this Court and the same was disposed of on 5/7/2012 with a direction to the concerned authorities to examine the claim of the petitioner. Thereafter the impugned order dtd. 5/7/2012 (Annexure P-5) has been passed which has led to the filing of the instant petition. Counsel asserts that by virtue of the impugned order the petitioner has been left without any source of sustenance in his old age.

(3.) Counsel has been heard at length and case paper-book has been perused minutely.