PUNJAB STATE Vs. BAWA DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Regular Second Appeal filed by the State of Punjab challenging the correctness of the concurrent finding of the two courts below, vide which the orders dated September 03, 1987 (Exhibit P-3) passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, retiring the plaintiff- respondent from service under Rule 3(1)(a) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter to be referred to as the "Rules") and also the order dated April 07, 1988 passed by the Director General of Police, Punjab Chandigarh, rejecting the representation preferred by the plaintiff-respondent, were held to be illegal, arbitrary, mala-fide and in contravention of the Rules and it was further ordered that he will continue to remain in service of the defendants and would also be entitled to his pay and privilege etc. as available to him under the Rules.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent joined as a constable at Amritsar in the year 1961. He was retired from service under Rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules on September 03, 1987. The relevant portion of this Rule reads as under:-

(3.) The only point on which this Court was addressed by Shri Gurinder Singh, Deputy Advocate-General, Punjab, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri D.S. Pheruman, learned counsel of the respondent, was as to whether the period of seven years of forfeited approved service of the plaintiff-respondent, as ordered by the competent authority vide Exhibits D-1, D-2 and D-3, from the total length of his service is to be counted towards his qualifying service of 25 years, for the purpose of his premature retirement as envisaged under Rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules, or not. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, this seven years period of forfeited service is to be counted to determine the period of twenty-five years of qualifying service, whereas the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that this period cannot be considered as the period of his approved service, in view of the orders Exhibits D-1, D-2 and D-3 vide which the period of seven years of his approved service was ordered to be forfeited. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon Gurdial Singh v. The State of Punjab and others,1989 1 RSJ 341 in which also this very proposition was involved and it was held "that the expression "qualifying service" has been defined in Rule 2(3) of the said Rules to mean "service qualifying for pension." The petitioner in that case was appointed as a constable on 19.4.1961. He was prematurely retired from service with effect from 3.9.1987, by paying three months salary in lieu of the notice period, as provided under Rule 3(1) of the Rules. His three years approved service had been forfeited by the respondent-State on 29.11.19985. Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Agnihotri (as his Lordship then was), held that the remaining service of the petitioner qualifying for pension was only for 24-1/2 years i.e. less than 25 years on the date of his retirement, and the writ petition was allowed, quashing the impugned order of premature retirement dated 3.9.1987 and it was further ordered that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been reinstated in service retrospectively, with all consequential benefits.