RAMESH CHAND KAUSHIK Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was selected as a Patwari candidate in the year 1949 and was appointed as Patwari in District Ambala in the year 1951. Thereafter, he joined Army and was discharged from there in the year 1968. He represented to the respondents on 24th August, 1968, for being appointed as Patwari, and when this was not done for about five years, he approached this Court in C.W.P. No. 1628 of 1973 which was allowed on 24th November, 1981. In compliance with the judgment the petitioner was taken back in service as Patwari by order dated 5th November, 1982, of the Collector, Ambala, issued on 3rd December, 1982 (Annexure R-2/T). Thereafter he sought voluntary retirement from service and was retired with effect from 28th February, 1989. Pension has not been released to the petitioner despite the total period of service rendered by him from 1st March, 1951, to 10th April, 1964, and thereafter from 3rd December, 1982 to 28th February, 1989. This is for the reason that there is break in service from 1964 to 1982, that is, eighteen years, during which period the petitioner served for sometime in the Army. This decision of the respondents has been challenged in the present petition on the ground that as in the earlier writ petition allowed by this Court on 24th November, 1981, the respondents has been directed to consider the case of the petitioner for being appointed to the post of Patwari on his turn, the direction was not complied with inasmuch as the petitioner was not taken back in service on his turn when though persons junior to him were appointed. This is evident from the fact that even though seniority number of the petitioner was 262, yet his juniors like Jagdish, Rattan Lal, Kailash Chand, etc., who were his batch-mates and have also retired from service, are in respect of the pension.

(2.) In the written statement, the factual position has been admitted and the only plea taken by the respondents is that as the total service of the petitioner falls short by about six months, pension has been denied to him.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that if the judgment of this Court had been complied with and the petitioner had been taken into service on his turn, he would have been entitled to pension, as all the persons mentioned above, who happened to be his juniors, are receiving the same.