SUMITTER SINGH GILL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated April 17, 1995, by which his prayer for voluntary retirement has been rejected. He prays that this order be quashed and it be declared that he shall be deemed to have retired with effect from May 15, 1991. The petitioner also prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the retiral benefits. A few facts as relevant for the decision of the case may be briefly noticed.

(2.) The petitioner was recruited as a Sectional Officer on April 14, 1959. On April 23, 1972, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Sub Divisional Officer. While he was working as such, he applied for earned leave of 55 days. He had to go to Canada to attend his daughter's wedding. The leave was sanctioned for the period from December 25, 1989 to February 17, 1990. Even a certificate was issued to the effect that ''no inquiry case/police case/ disciplinary case/corruption case is pending against Shri Sumitter Singh Gill, Sub Divisional Officer.'' The petitioner went abroad in December, 1989. He states that on account of his ill health he was forced to ask for extension of leave. When his request was declined, he sent a notice dated February 15, 1991, requesting the respondents to allow him to voluntarity retire from service on the expiry of the required period of three months. No reply was given to the petitioner. On August 7, 1992, the petitioner made a request to the respondents to release his pension and other retiral benefits. He also sent them an indemnity bond vide letter dated September 3, 1992. The Chief Engineer forwarded his case to the Government. Simultaneously an inquiry was also made as to whether or not he was in employment in Canada or he was getting any unemployment allowance. The petitioner sent his reply soon after the receipt of this letter. He informed the respondents that he was not doing any job and that he was not getting any unemployment allowance. Thereafter, certain other correspondence ensued. Ultimately, vide order dated April 17, 1995, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-15 with the writ petition, the Government informed the petitioner that his request for voluntary retirement and extension of leave and been rejected. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. He, as already noticed, prays that the order April 17, 1995, be quashed and the respondents be directed to release his retiral benefits.

(3.) The respondents contest the petitioner's claim. The fact that the petitioner had been granted earned leave from December 25, 1989 to February 17, 1990, has been admitted. It has, however, been averred that the petitioner did not return to the same post on the expiry of the said leave and remained ''wilfully absent from duty w.e.f. 18.2.1990 onward. Therefore, he was not on duty when he applied for voluntary retirement. Rather he was wilfully absent from duty for which his dismissal is warranted''. On these premises, the respondents urge that the notice for premature retirement as given by the petitioner was invalid and illegal.