SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Nine years ago, the petitioner had moved this Court for issue of mandamus to the respondent to give him pension and other retiral benefits because he had superannuated on 30.4.1984.

(2.) Due the reasons, which need not be detailed out here, this Court could not hear the case for a period of nine years and when ultimately the case has been taken up for hearing, the counsel for the petitioner thought it proper to abandon his client. This has left the Court with no option but to hear the learned Deputy Advocate General and decide the case on the basis of material available on the record without any assistance on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) The averments made in the writ petition and the reply show that after having served the Government for a period of 32 years, the petitioner was retired w.e.f. 30.4.1984 on attaining the age of 58 years. An inquiry was initiated against the petitioner eight months after his retirement and in contemplation of the inquiry, the Government withheld payment of gratuity and other retiral dues forcing him to approach this Court. On 28.11.1986, the proceedings of the inquiry were dropped and an order to this effect was passed by the Government but despite that payment of dues was not made to the petitioner.