HEM RAJ MITTAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this second round of litigation by the petitioner he has prayed for issue of a direction to the respondents to consider the total service rendered by him as qualifying service for the purpose of pension, gratuity etc. till the date of superannuation, He has also made a claim for counting of 5 years service under the Premature Retirement Rules, 1975 . Prayer has also been made for counting the period of leave as part of qualifying service towards pension, gratuity etc. It has further been prayed that dearness allowance and dearness pay be counted for the purpose of pension and gratuity by declaring the instructions; issued by the Government to be illegal.

(2.) The facts of the case show that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Teacher by the Director of Public Instruction Pepsu, in the year 1954. On the formation of the State of Punjab with effect from 1.11.1956 the service of the petitioner was merged in the newly constituted State. The petitioner was promoted as Master in Mathematics in the year 1960 after having been selected by the Punjab Subordinate Services Selection Board. He was promoted as a Lecturer in the School Cadre on 1.10.1966 and then as Headmaster with effect from 12.2.1972. With effect from 1. 10. 1974 the petitioner was appointed to P.E.S. Class II (School and Inspection Cadre Men's Branch) in the grade of Rs. 400-800 after selection by the Punjab Public Service Commission. He was posted as Deputy District Education Officer.

(3.) Vide Government notification dated 15.10.1974 (Annexure P.1) the petitioner was appointed as Chairman of the Punjab Subordinate Services Selection Board. The petitioner resigned from the post of Deputy District Education Officer vide his letter dated 23.5.1974 and joined as Chairman of the said Board. Subsequently, by another notification dated 27.6.1977 (Annexure P.3) the petitioner was removed from the office of Chairman of the Board. The petitioner was not paid pension and other retirement dues after his removal from the office of Chairman and, therefore, he filed C.W.P. No. 4606 of 1982 and prayed for issue of a direction to the respondents to pay him pension, gratuity and pensionary benefits. That petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge on 11.9.1989 (Annexure P.4). L.P.A. No. 2094 of 1989 filed by the State Government was dismissed by a Division Bench vide order dated 29.10.1991 (Annexure P.5). On account of non-compliance of the order of the Court by the respondents, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 661 of 1992. During the pendency of the contempt petition, the respondents issued orders dated 27.8.1992 and 2.9.1992 and made a statement before the Court that pension and gratuity due to the petitioner have been paid and consequently the contempt petition was disposed of by the Court on 22.9.1992. The petitioner served a fresh notice of contempt by alleging that he had not been paid full retirement dues. He filed a second contempt petition but the same was dismissed on 27.8.1993 vide Annexure P.6. The Court held that no ground was made out for initiating contempt proceedings. However, liberty was given to the petitioner to avail the remedy as per rules.