DAYANAND Vs. UHBVNL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Assistant Lineman in the year 1979 and thereafter was promoted to the post of Lineman in the year 1992. He was further promoted to the post of Assistant Foreman in the year 2007. He sought voluntarily retirement and as such retired on 31.12.2010. The petitioner was paid leave encashment, GPF and GIS but the amount of gratuity/commutation of pension/pension was not paid to him. He served a legal notice upon the respondents through his counsel but still the same was not paid to him. The petitioner thereafter filed C.W.P. No. 8564 of 2012 before this Court, wherein, notice of motion was issued. After issuing notice of motion, written statement was filed by the respondents stating therein that the respondents had released retiral benefits as claimed in the petition. However, at the time of release of the amount to the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 40,008/- was deducted from his retiral benefits on account of shortage of oil and breakage of parts of transformers.

(2.) The present petition has been filed for quashing of action of the respondents, whereby, a sum of Rs. 40,008/- has been deducted from the retiral benefits of the petitioner on account of shortage of oil and breakage of parts of transformers and to refund said amount of Rs. 40,008/- to the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner voluntarily retired from service w.e.f. 31.12.2010 and at that time there was no charge-sheet or inquiry pending against him and all benefits except gratuity and commutation of pension were released to the petitioner. The petitioner earlier filed C.W.P. No. 8564 of 2012 before this Court, wherein, a wrong averment was made in the reply filed that all benefits have been released. However, while releasing the benefits a sum of Rs. 40,008/- has wrongly been deducted, whereas, neither any inquiry nor any charge-sheet was pending at the time of seeking voluntary retirement. Learned counsel further submits that as per Rule 2.2 (b) of Punjab Civil Services Volume II Part I, the retiral benefits can be withheld only in case any disciplinary proceedings are pending against the retiree on the date of retirement but in the present case neither any proceedings nor any inquiry was pending.