Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ganga Bishan vs State Of Haryana Through Director, ... on 23 February, 1994
Equivalent citations: (1994)108PLR691
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The petitioner, who was permitted to retire as a Sweeper from the Directorate of Animal Husbandary Haryana with effect from May 31, 1990, prays for the issue of an appropriate writ directing the respondents to grant him the various retiral benefits like pension, gratuity and 'share of Group Insurance'. The respondents contest this claim on the ground that the petitioner having remained absent for different intervals of time, had only completed 18 years, 5 months and 15 days of service instead of 20 years on the date he had retired. Since he had not completed 20 years of service, he is not entitled to the grant of pension etc.
2. Counsel for the parties have been heard. Mr. Anil Rathee, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner had joined service on May 15, 1970. He had given a notice under Rule 5.32(B) on March 22, 1990 seeking premature retirement. Vide order dated July 5, 1990, his request was accepted and the petitioner was permitted to retire with, effect from May 31, 1990. Consequently, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner had completed 20 years of service. He further contends that even if the petitioner had not completed 20 years of service, he is still entitled to the grant of pension for the period he had actually served the respondents. On the other hand, Mr. Jaswant Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, has submitted that the petitioner had remained absent for different intervals of time and is not entitled to the grant of any pension as he had not completed the requisite period of qualifying service.
3. A perusal of the pleadings of the parties shows that the petitioner had not completed 20 years of qualifying service on March 22, 1990, when he served a notice seeking premature retirement under Rule 5.32(B). This request of the petitioner was unconditionally accepted by the respondents vide letter dated July 5, 1990 and he was informed that his "application dated 22.3.90 for seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 30.5.90 AN is accepted." The respondents having accepted the petitioner's request cannot now deny and say that he was not, in fact, entitled to retire on that date. In any event, the short question that arises for consideration in this case is - Is the petitioner entitled to the grant of pension and gratuity etc. for the period for which he had admittedly served the department?
4. The grant of pension and gratuity is governed by the provisions of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Vol. II. Rule 6.16(1) provides the scale of service gratuity admissible to a person, who retires before completing qualifying service of ten years. Similarly, in Rule 6.16(A) provision for the payment of gratuity to the retiring government servants has been made. As for pension, Rule 6.16(2) inter-alia provides that "in the case of a government employee who at the time of retirement has rendered qualifying service of ten years or more but less than thirty-three years, the amount of pension shall be in such proportion of (to) the maximum admissible pension as the qualifying service rendered by him bears to the maximum qualifying service of thirty-three years, subject to a minimum of Rs. 375/- per mensem.'' It is thus clear that a person becomes entitled to the grant of pension on completion of ten years qualifying service. It is the admitted position in the present case that the petitioner had served for a total period of 18 years, 5 months and 15 days. Consequently, he was entitled to the grant of pension in view of the provisions of Rule 6.16(2). He was also entitled to the grant of gratuity in accordance with the provisions of the Rules. In view of these provisions, the claim of the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of pension and gratuity as he had not completed 20 years of service cannot be sustained. It is also the admitted position that the amount of money admissible to the petitioner under the Group Insurance Scheme has not yet been determined and the case is under consideration.
5. In view of the above, it is held that the petitioner is entitled to the payment of gratuity, pension and amount of money due under the Group Insurance Scheme. The respondents will determine and pay this amount within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. Since the arrears of pension etc. have been wrongly denied to the petitioner for a long period of time, he will also be entitled to the payment of interest @ 12% per annum from the date these fall due till the date of their actual payment. The petitioner will also be entitled to his costs which are assessed at Rs. 2,000/-.