M M LAL BAREJA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION joined service as Clerk -cum -Steno typist in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, and served in that capacity between 12.7.1952 and 18.9.1967. While he was serving under the Deputy Commissioner, M/s. National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. which subsequently came to be known as Hindustan Copper Ltd. after bifurcation, advertised a post of Senior Stenographer. The petitioner submitted his application through proper channel. He was selected for the said post of Senior Stenographer. With the object of joining the new organisation, the petitioner submitted an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, for being relieved. This application was forwarded by the District Development and panchayat Officer, Gurgaon, on 29.8.1967 with favourable recommendations. The petitioner also made a request for grant of extraordinary leave for three years. This request was also favourably recommended by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Gurgaon, However, the District Authorities did not agree to the request of the petitioner for grant of extraordinary leave. In these circumstances, the petitioner submitted an application dated 1.9.1967 and prayed that in case it was not possible to grant him extra ordinary leave that letter be treated as his resignation. The petitioner was thereafter relieved on acceptance of his resignation from the service of the Government of Haryana.

(2.) AFTER his retirement from the service of Hindustan Copper Ltd., the petitioner submitted application to the respondents for grant of pro -rata pension and death -cum -retirement gratuity in lieu of the service rendered by him for a period of over 15 years under the Government of Haryana. His application was favourably recommended by the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, who wrote letter (Annexure P -4) dated 26.3.1991 to the Commissioner, Gurgaon, Request of the petitioner for grant of pro -rata pension and death -cum -retirement gratuity was declined by the Government vide Annexure P -5 issued by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and Secretary to the Government of Haryana. The petitioner once again reiterated his claim for grant of the pro -rata pension and death -cum -retirement gratuity but could not succeed in persuading the respondents to grant the same. He has, therefore, filed this petition with the plea that the action of the respondents in not paying him pension and death -cum -retirement gratuity is arbitrary and unreasonable. Petitioner's contention is that in terms of the provisions contained in the Punjab Civil Services Rules which have been created as applicable to the services of the State of Haryana, he has a legal right to be paid pension in lieu of the service rendered by him with the Government of Haryana and by withholding the benefit of pension and death -cum -retirement gratuity the respondents have violated his fundamental as well as constitutional rights under Articles 14, 16 and 300 -A of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE only point which requires adjudication by the Court is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to be paid pension in lieu of the service rendered by him with the Government of Haryana prior to his joining the service of the National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. While learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Rule 6.1 and other rules contained in Chapter VI of the Punjab Civil Services Rules in support of the petitioner's case, learned Assistant Advocate General has relied on Rules 3.17, 5.1 and 5.2 of the Rules in support of her argument that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of pro -rata pension or death -cum -retirement gratuity.