CHATTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Chhattar Singh-petitioner joined Education Department of the State of Haryana as clerk. In the course of time, he was promoted to the post of assistant. When he reached the age of 55 years, question of taking him beyond that age in service up to 58 years, came up for consideration. Vide order Annexure P-1, he was ordered to be retired compulsorily under Rule 5.32(C) and note thereunder of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol.II as applicable to the State of Haryana. He represented against the order Annexure P-1 whereby he had been ordered to be compulsorily retired at the age of 55 years. His representation was accepted vide order Annexure P-3. While accepting his representation and ordering his retention in service beyond the age of 55 years vide order Annexure P-3 what the Director of School Education. Haryana did was that the intervening period during which he remained out of job in the wake of order retiring him from service at the age of 55 years was order to be treated as the leave of the kind due. Through this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, he has prayed for the issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the State of Haryana to refund the amount of Rs. 3466.85 paise which were recovered from him vide order Annexure P-4 as pay for the period for which earned leave could not be sanctioned to him. He remained out of job for 360 days on account of order vide which extension in service beyond 55 years was refused to him. 296 days were treated as leave with full day while 64 days were treated as half pay leave. On objection being raised by the audit party of the Education Department that the maximum earned leave which could be granted to a Government employee should not exceed 120 days, he was called upon to pay Rs. 3466.85 paise which represented the excess amount received by him. This amount was actually recovered from him. The order of refusing him extension beyond the age of 55 years was withdrawn. It is as if he remained on job with all the emoluments for the period from 10.2.1984 to 2.2.1985. He could not have been treated on any day's leave during that period. He should have been treated on duty.

(2.) In the written statement filed by the State of Haryana, it is stated that he was compulsorily retired because of his involvement in embezzlement case. On his representation, he was found innocent. It was found that he was not involved in the embezzlement case. Consequently, order of refusing him extension in service beyond 55 years of age was withdrawn.

(3.) Be that as it may, when the order refusing him extension beyond 55 years was withdrawn and he was allowed to continue beyond 55 years to 58 years, he was entitled to all the usual emoluments which he would have otherwise drawn for the period 10.2.1984 to 2.2.1985 i.e. during which he remained out of job.