JASBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant him pension. A few facts as relevant for the decision of the case may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner had joined service as a work mistry with the Department of Public Works (Building & Roads Branch) on May 1,1968. This appointment was on daily wages. He worked as such for a years. On May 1,1969, the petitioner was appointed on work-charge basis. He continued to work as such till May 31,1975. Thereafter, on April 1,1975, the petitioner's services were regularised. On March 1,1989 the petitioner gave a notice seeking premature retirement from service. A copy of this notice has been produced as Annexure P/1 with the writ petition. He requested that he be relieved of his duties with effect from March 31,1989. The competent authority accepted the petitioner's request. Vide order dated March 31,1989 the Executive Engineer, Construction Division No.1, P.W.D. (B&R. Branch), Patiala, informed the petitioner that "notice for retirement given by you is accepted by this Department and you are relieved from 31.3.1989 (A.N.) after retirement..." Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his papers for the release of retiral benefits including pension. He was paid the amount due on account of Provident fund and leave encashment. On account of provident fund and leave encashment. With regard to pension the Office of Accountant - General, Punjab, Chandigarh observed that the petitioner had not "completed age of 58 years nor he has 20 years of service at his credit and his regular service will be counted with effect from 1.4.1975... Therefore, all the papers are returned herewith." Aggrieved by this action, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. He alleges that the respondents were bound to take into consideration the period of service from May 1,1968 to March 31,1989. If that is done the petitioner had completed more than 20 years of service. Still further, the petitioner alleges that the respondents having permitted him to retire prematurely they are estopped from contending that he had not completed 20 years of qualifying service. In any event, under the rules he was entitled to the benefit of five years of service. On these grounds, the petitioner prays for the issue of a direction to the respondents to release all the retiral benefits with interest.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been inter alia averred that the petitioner had a total qualifying service of 19 years and 11 months from May 1,1969 to March 31,1989. This being less than 20 years he is not entitled to the grant of pension. It has been further mentioned that the petitioner was paid an amount of Rs. 14,354/- vide bill dated July 29,1994 towards the provident fund. He had accepted this amount. On these premises, the respondents arm praying that the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of any relief.