BUTA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Buta Singh (Retd,) Naib Tehsildar through present petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash order dated 26-5-1995 passed by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department, setting aside the order dated 29-12-1994 passed by the Commissioner, Ambala, and in consequence of setting aside the aforesaid order to uphold the order of Commissioner dated 29-12-1994. Petitioner further seeks writ in the nature of mandamus to count the time spent by him while undergoing training for the purposes of pension. The period for the training is said to be from 6-10-1938 to 30-1-1941.

(2.) Brief facts on which the relief (s) as spelled out above are sought to rest reveal that the petitioner was born at Wazirabad in District Gujranwala now forming part of Pakistan and was accepted as a Naib Tehsildar candidate on 6-10-1938 by the competent authority. He was deputed on training which he completed in the year 1941, to be precise, on 30-1-1941. After completing the training and passing departmental examination, he was appointed as Extra Naib Tehsildar, Thur, Girdawari Work, District Sialkot (now in Pakistan ). After having put in about 30 years of service, lie retired on 19-11-1971 at the age of 55 years on his request. He was, however, not granted pensionary benefits from 6-10-1938 when he was accepted as Naib Tehsildar candidate and was sent on training. He made various representations to the authorities for granting him pensionary benefits for the period referred to above. One of his representations was accepted by the learned Commissioner. Ambala vide orders dated 29-12-1994. This order was, however, set aside by the Financial Commissioner vide impugned order dated 26-5-1995. It is in wake of these circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Pursuant to notice issued in this case, respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner by filing written statement. It has, inter alia, been pleaded that the petitioner retired from service on 19-11-1971 and the present petition has been filed after 28 years and as such the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. On merits, it is the case of the respondents that petitioner had claimed that his training period of Naib Tehsildar which he has undergone be counted as qualifying service which had to be verified on the basis of pay bills in view of Rule 4. 12-A of Civil Service Rules and that the department has no record pertaining to the service graph of the petitioner for the period in question.