AMAR SINGH Vs. CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, Amar Singh, Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to pay the Petitioner cash equivalent to six months unutilized earned leave at his credit at the time of his retirement. To begin with the factual matrix:

(2.) Having served the State of Punjab in the Department of Printing and Stationery for over 32 years, Amar Singh Petitioner was compulsorily retired under Rule 3(i)(a) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter called "the 1975 Rules") in public interest,--vide orders, dated 31st August, 1979. He was paid pay and allowances for three months in lieu of notice as provided in Rule 3(i)(b) of the 1975 Rules, ibid. At that time, he was working as officiating Head Assistant.

(3.) In 1978, the Punjab Government decided that the Punjab Government employees, retiring on superannuation on or after 31st January, 1978, will be paid cash equivalent to leave salary in respect of the period of earned leave at their credit at the time of their retirement. This concession was, among others, subject to the condition that the payment of cash equivalent to leave salary shall be limited to a maximum of 180 days of earned leave. It was further stipulated that these orders shall not apply to cases of premature/voluntary retirement or persons who are compulsorily retired as a measure of punishment. These orders were circulated by the Commissioner for Finance and Secretary to Government, Punjab,--vide letter, dated January, 25, 1978, copy of which is appended as Annexure P.2 to the writ petition. These instructions were modified by orders, dated April 14, 1978, whereby the instructions were made applicable to even those Government employees, who had attained the age of retirement on September 30, 1977. The Petitioner had been compulsorily retired on August 31, 1979, when instructions (Annexure P.2) were in vogue. The Petitioner contends that these instructions in so far as they deny the benefit of cash equivalent to six months' salary in lieu of the earned leave at the credit of a Government servant compulsorily retired under Rule 3(i)(a) of the Rules, were discriminatory. This retirement is not as a measure of punishment. All retiring Government servants fall in one category. They form a class. The persons who were compulsorily retired under Rule 3(i)(a) of the Rules do not form a separate or distinct class. It is well-settled that a premature retirement does not attach any stigma and is not by way of punishment and it has no penal consequences. The persons who are prematurely retired are entitled to all the benefits, which are available to persons who retire on attaining the age of superannuation. No discrimination can be made against them in the matter of extension of the concessions conferred by Annexure P.2 only on the ground that persons falling in the first category were retired compulsorily. There is no rational basis for such a classification and it has no nexus with the object to be achieved. The object of the instructions was to confer benefit on retiring personnel. This object is in no way achieved by depriving the Petitioner or other prematurely retired Government servants of the benefits conferred thereby.