JAGDISH MITTER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner is seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the pension and other pensionary benefits for which he is legally entitled under the Punjab Civil Service Rules and the instructions issued by the State of Punjab from time to time as he has rendered more than 23 years of service with the respondents.

(2.) Petitioner was appointed as Patwari in February 1944 having been selected in an open competition which took place in the year 1942. After the partition of the country in 1947 he has been promoted as Clerk and posted in the office of Tehsildar Rehabilitation. Thereafter he also worked as Reader to the Naib Tehsildar. After completion of the rehabilitation work at Jalandhar he was sent to work in Gurdaspur District. In 1952 he had been transferred to Batala. He also worked at Dalhousie under the control of Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur. He was again transferred to Pathankot in 1957. After putting in a service of nearly 22 years he took voluntary retirement in the year 1966 when he was working as a Clerk in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur but the State Government has not sanctioned the pension to him. Therefore, he filed this writ petition seeking direction to the respondents to fix his pension and pay the same in accordance with the rules and also for other pensionary benefits payable to him under the relevant rules and the instructions issued by the State of Punjab from time to time.

(3.) There cannot be any denial of the fact that a person who has put in more than 10 years of service, is entitled to the pension even though he took voluntary retirement or resigned voluntarily. The pension is a right accrued to the employees of the State Govt. and earned by them because of their services. There cannot also be any dispute that the right to get pension is a continuing and recurring right which furnishes a recurring cause of action. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the pensionary benefits for the service of more than 22 years as he has rendered. The petitioner is now aged 73 years and any delay in releasing the pension is inexcusable.