Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nanak Chand vs State Of Punjab And Others on 25 September, 2013
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
C.W.P. No. 21333 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 21333 of 2013
Date of Decision : 25.09.2013
Nanak Chand
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present : Mr. Harinder Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner
MAHESH GROVER, J.
The petitioner by virtue of this instant petition prays for quashing of the letter dated 27.02.2013 (Annexure P-3) as he has been denied the benefit of extension of one year in service beyond the age of superannuation on the ground that petitioner is in the diminishing cadre.
The case of the petitioner is that he as an employee of the Corporation is governed by Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Revised Service Regulations, 1985. The age of superannuation provided is 58 years and he is due to retire on 31.10.2013.
On 08.10.2012, the Finance Department of the Government of Punjab issued a Notification for the substitution of the provisions of clause (a) and (b) of Rule 3.26 of the Punjab Civil Services Volume-I Part-I for the grant of extension in service period Reena 2013.10.01 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh C.W.P. No. 21333 of 2013 2 of its employees upto maximum period of two years in the event of their opting for the same. This circular was followed by another clarificatory circular enabling the State to give extension of one year in service to Group A, B, C and D employees and sought option from them in this regard. It has further been stated that such employees would be entitled to draw their pay and allowances for the extended period of service equal to the pay last drawn by them on the date of their retirement and if promotional post is available, they shall be eligible for consideration for promotion.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the provisions of Punjab Civil Services Rules are silent in this regard as the age of superannuation is clearly provided to be 58 years in the Rules governing the service conditions of the petitioner and, thus, there is no occasion to override the specific provisions of the rules.
The benefit of the aforesaid instructions/Circular has been denied to the petitioner on the ground that he has been assigned a diminishing cadre and, thus, the instructions would not be applicable to him. The petitioner pleads discrimination.
I have considered the contentions raised before this Court and I am of the opinion that the petitioner does not have any enforceable right in his favour. Evidently, the service conditions of the petitioner are governed by statutory rules which have not been amended to extend the age of superannuation beyond 58 years. The circular issued by the State of Punjab would, thus, carry a big question mark about its sustainability, in view of the fact that the same has the effect of overriding the provisions of the rules. Reena 2013.10.01 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh C.W.P. No. 21333 of 2013 3 Another impediment in the way of the petitioner is that he has been placed in a diminishing cadre which would indicate that the cadre is on its way to extinction. If that be so, then further extension in service would imply extending life of the cadre itself which again would be defeating the very purpose; the cadre being diminishing in nature.
For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the instant petition cannot succeed and the prayer made by the petitioner can not be granted in his favour.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case P. Venugopal vs. Union of India, (2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 1 has observed as follows:-
"It is true that in establishments like AIIMS, there is an age of superannuation governing the length of service of its offices and employees. Such age of superannuation may be suitably altered by way of reducing the age so as to affect even the serving employees under appropriate circumstances and no exception can be taken to such course of action. Similarly, under the service rules, there may be provision for extension of service after the attainment of the age of superannuation and it is well settled that in the event of refusal by an employer to grant an extension, the employee cannot justifiably claim to be deprived of any right or privilege. The view taken is that the employer has a discretion to grant or not to grant such extension having regard to the interest of the employer or the establishment. This view was expressed by this Court in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur vs. Jag Mohan La, 1989 SCC (L&S) 323.Reena 2013.10.01 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh C.W.P. No. 21333 of 2013 4
The writ petition is, therefore, held to be without any merit and is dismissed. The petitioner, however, would be at liberty to pursue his remedy with the respondents.
September 25, 2013 (Mahesh Grover)
reena Judge
Reena
2013.10.01 15:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
chandigarh