RAGHBIR CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Raghbir Chand through present writ filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ in the nature of Certiorari so as to quash order dated January 29, 1992, vide which it was held that he was not entitled to any pension under the rules.

(2.) Brief facts of the case reveal that the petitioner after graduating in law started practising as an Advocate. When he had practised for two years, he applied for the post of a prosecuting Sub Inspector and was selected as such in the year 1969. He joined the post of Prosecuting Sub Inspector at Ambala on April 28, 1969. Obviously, at the time when he joined service, he was medically examined and was found fit for entry into government service. Earlier the investigating agency was in the police department but in the meanwhile by April, 1974, it was separated from police department and a separate directorate of prosecution was created with the Director of Prosecution as Head of the Department and the said Department was placed under the Administrative Control of Administration of Justice Department. The post of Prosecuting Sub Inspector was designated as Assistant District Attorney. It is the case of the petitioner that due to heavy pressure of work assigned to him, he remained under tension and ultimately he developed psychosis as also emotional disturbances and delusions which took the form of mental ailment known as schizophrenia. He was medically examined by the Medical Board and which opined that he was a patient of chronic undifferentiated schizophrenia and was unfit to join duties as District Attorney. Vide order dated April 19, 1979, he was retired on invalid pension. Copy of the order retiring petitioner on invalid pension has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. It is the case of the petitioner that he had rendered 9 years 11 months and 22 days of service which was only less by 8 days of ten years which concededly qualifies himself for getting pension. The order Annexure P-1 it appears was revised by order Annexure P-2 dated January 29, 1992, vide which the petitioner was informed that his qualifying service was less than ten years and therefore, he was not entitled to pension under the Rules. It is this order referred to above which has been challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) The sole but forceful contention of Mr. Gill, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that a separate rule dealing with the retirement from public service on account of mental infirmity or permanent incapacitation for a public service exists. Rule dealing with the same is 5.11 of the Punjab Civil Service Volume II which reads as follows:-