GURBAX SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Gurbax Singh was dismissed from the service of the Police Department by an order dated 11.12.1992. The aforesaid order was impugned by the petitioner by filing CWP No. 16282 of 1992. In the aforesaid writ petition, an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner, whereby the operation of the order of dismissal dated 11.12.1992 was stayed. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner continued to render service with the respondents till 31.1.1993. The tenure of employment of the petitioner came to an end on 31.1.1993 on account of the fact that he came to attain the age of superannuation on the aforesaid date. Prior to the aforesaid date of retirement, the petitioner was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Faridkot, by an order dated 31.10.1992, under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code. On account of the petitioner's conviction by the aforesaid order dated 31.10.1992, despite the fact that the petitioner had attained the age of retirement, he was not paid any retiral benefits.

(2.) The petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court, wherein the impugned the order of his conviction dated 31.10.1992 was set aside. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the order of conviction dated 31.10,1992, passed by the Sessions Judge, Faridkot, was set aside by this Court on 12.10.1998 and that the petitioner was acquitted.

(3.) Having successfully assailed the order, on the basis of which he had been denied of his retiral benefits, the petitioner then started to demand his retiral benefits. Since the same were not being released to him he approached this Court by filing CWP No. 5370 of 2000, which was disposed of by an order dated 4.5.2001, requiring the respondents to decide the representation filed by the petitioner claiming his retiral benefits. It would, however, be pertinent to mention that all the retiral benefits due to the petitioner were released to the petitioner in the years 1999 and 2000. The claim of the petitioner for demand of the retiral benefits, therefore, stood satisfied. By an order dated 2.8.2001, the representation of the petitioner was disposed of. He was held not entitled to any interest on account of the delayed payment of retiral benefits.