OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dated 26.6.1992 passed by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Chandigarh, has been made the subject-matter of challenge in this petition. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of order Annexure P-4 and for issue of a direction to the respondents to pay him salary for the period between 1.7.1986 and 26.6.1992 and to count the said period towards pensionary benefits. He has also prayed for award of interest and for refund of Rs. 18390/- recovered from him.

(2.) Petitioner joined service of the Punjab Roadways on 24.1.1964. He was allocated to the State of Haryana on 1.11.1966. At the time of appointment he gave out his date of birth as 17.6.1928. On 6.2.1990 he was suspended and charge-sheeted for making interpolation in the service book in the column of 'date of birth'. It was alleged that he was instrumental in getting his date of birth changed from 17.6.1928 to 17.6.1938. A notice was issued to the petitioner proposing termination of service. After considering his reply the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Chandigarh, passed an order dated 13.6.1990 terminating the service of the petitioner. On an appeal filed by the petitioner, against the order of termination of his service, the Transport Commissioner, Haryana, passed order Annexure P.2 dated 9.10.1991 and gave direction to the General Manager to retire the petitioner with effect from his normal date of superannuation with a further direction that the period beyond his superannuation till the actual retirement be regarded as re-employment and pension for this period should be kept in abeyance. He was ordered to be paid pension from the date of normal retirement. Thereafter, the General Manager issued order Annexure P.3 dated 20.5.1992 retiring the petitioner with effect from 30.6.1986 (A.N.). He also passed order Annexure P-4 for reemployment of the petitioner as driver in the service of the Haryana Roadways with effect from 1.7.1986 in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 with basic pay of Rs. 1200/- Subsequently, the respondents deducted a sum of Rs. 18390/- from the gratuity payable to the petitioner. The petitioner has assailed the legality of the order Annexure P.4 on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice and also on the ground that respondent No. 3 has acted arbitrarily in not giving benefit of total length of service to the petitioner for the purpose of computation of his pension and also that he has arbitrarily withheld the benefit of annual grade increments etc. payable to the petitioner with effect from 1.7.1986.

(3.) The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents. It has been pleaded by the respondents that the petitioner was responsible for manipulating a change in the recorded date of his birth and that the order passed by the Transport Commissioner on 9.10.1991 cannot be construed as an order for retirement of the petitioner from a date subsequent to 30.6.1986. Respondents have also pleaded that excess payment of salary was made to the petitioner and therefore deduction was necessitated from the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner. Respondents have denied the claim of the petitioner that he is entitled to the grant of benefit of total length of service towards computation of his pension. They have also denied that the petitioner is entitled to annual grade increments for the service rendered by him after 30.6.1986.