BALWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - Balwant Singh, by way of present petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash order Annexure P-6 dated July 10, 1997, vide which he was not allowed benefit of service rendered by him under the Zila Parishad for computing/calculating his pension and other retiral benefits.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present petition need a necessary mention. The petitioner came to be appointed as Sanitary Daroga on Nov. 8, 1963, in the office of the Zila Parishad, Ambala, and it is his case that he worked as such till Nov. 30, 1973. Vide Haryana Act No. 22 of 1973 all existing Zila Parishads were abolished and all liabilities including employees stood transferred to the Government of Haryana. Consequently, the petitioner was absorbed in the Health Department and posted as Sanitary Daroga on Dec. 1, 1973, in the office of the Chief Medical Officer, with all the benefits admissible to the Government employees. The service rendered by the petitioner in the Zila Parishad was, however, not qualified for pension as there was no provision made for grant of pension. However, the petitioner kept on working on the post of Sanitary Daroga as a permanent employee after his absorption upto Feb. 2, 1977. Having put in three years continuous service thereat, he was constrained to submit his resignation to the Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Ambala, respondent No. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that even at that stage there was no pension admissible to the petitioner. He tendered his resignation in the circumstances to enable him to join on the post of Sanitary Inspector, Municipal Committee, Mandi Dabwali, for which post he was selected. The resignation of the petitioner was accepted unconditionally vide letter dated April 14, 1977, Annexure P-2, with effect from Feb. 3, 1977. In the manner aforesaid, it is the case of the petitioner that he rendered service for a period of 13 years as permanent employee and was, thus, entitled to grant of pension and other post-retiral benefits.

(3.) The petitioner claims entitlement to pension on the basis of instructions dated Nov. 22, 1991, which came into being pursuant to a judgment of this Court in extending the benefit of pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits. The petitioner thereafter made a number of requests to the concerned authorities to expedite grant of post-retiral benefits to him, but when the same brought no tangible results and in fact when his representation was dismissed vide order Annexure P-6, the present writ petition came to be filed for the reliefs already mentioned.