ROHTASH SINGH MALIK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rohtash Singh Malik, who was discharged from service vide order dated 31.7.1995, on compassionate grounds at his own request, as communicated to him through letter dated 15.7.2003, Annexure P-8, through present petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash the said order. He further seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents as an alternative relief to grant disability pension to him with effect from 313.1995

(2.) Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents entered defence and by filing written statement hotly contested the cause of the petitioner. It may be mentioned, at the very out set, that no argument insofar as discharge of the petitioner is concerned, has been raised. All that has been urged before us is that the petitioner was, at least, entitled to disability pension. In the context of the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, we are, however, of the view that the petitioner is not entitled even to the alternative relief of disability pension. In paragraph 4 of the written statement, it has, inter-alia, been mentioned that the petitioner had submitted application dated 22.3.1994 along with appendix 'C' duly signed by him for his discharge from service, at his own request on compassionate ground due to his domestic problems. A copy of the application has been annexed as Annexure R-2 with the written statement. On the basis of the application, the respondents issued discharge order dated 25.4.1995, Annexure P-3 and the petitioner was discharged from service on 31.7.1995 at his own request on compassionate ground. At that time, the petitioner had completed 8 years, 8 months and 13 days of qualifying service. Since the petitioner was discharged from service at his own request due to his domestic problems, which amounted to resignation from service, he was not entitled to any kind of pensionary benefits. It is significant to mention here that in the application submitted by the petitioner, he had himself stated that he is ready to proceed on discharge without any pensionary benefits.

(3.) Confronted with the stand taken by the respondents in the written statement, as mentioned above, learned counsel representing the petitioner, contends that the petitioner was ultimately discharged after 1-1/2 years from the date he had made application to discharge him on compassionate ground and during the interRegulation m, he was being treated in different hospitals and, therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to dis-ability pension.