DAYAL SINGH DEWANA Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought a mandate from this Court to finalise his pension case and release the same in this petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India.

(2.) The undisputed facts as emerging from the pleading of the parties briefly are :

(3.) The defence taken by the State indicates the illegal, unjust and callous attitude of the functionaries of the State. Order of compulsory retirement is made in public interest. The right to be in public employment is a right to hold it according to rules. The right to hold it is defensible according to rules. The rule speaks of compulsory retirement in public interest. The Government servant in such a case does not lose the benefit which a Government servant has already earned. Compulsory retirement simplicitor does not amount to removal, termination or reduction in rank under Article 311 of the Constitution of India or under the service rules. It is in fact according to the terms and conditions of the service rules. Compulsory retirement is not a punishment because the Government servant does not lose the terminal benefits already earned by him. In State of Haryana v. Inder Parkash Anand and others, 1976 AIR(SC) 1841, the apex Court while dealing with the effect of compulsory retirement simplicitor after referring to Sham Lal v. State of U.P., 1954 AIR(SC) 369 held thus :-