Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhagwan Das (Died) vs Financial Commissioner Revenue, ... on 9 January, 1990
Equivalent citations: (1990)98PLR122
JUDGMENT M.R. Agnihotri, J.
1. This petition is squarely covered by the law laid down in the Division Bench judgment of this Court in K.K. Vaid v. State of Haryana, C.W.P. No. 4180 of 1986, delivered on 1st November, 1989, whereby it has been held that a Government servant has a right in law to continue to serve till the age of supsraonaution, that is, 58 years, as provided in Rules 3.26 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I, and this tenure of service cannot be brought to an end in a mechanical manner on the basis of an adverse report relating to a period which is of remote past in his service career, as also by the Single Bench judgment in Panna Lal Gupta v. Haryana State Electricity Board and Anr, C.W.P. No. 6267 of 1989, dated 23rd November, 1989.
2. In the present case, the date of birth of the petitioner is 2nd November, 1931, and adding 58 years to this, he was supposed to continue in service upto 30th November, 1989, in accordance with Rule 3.26 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part 1.
3. According to the petitioner, his service record was throughout good which did not justify his premature retirement from service. In reply to the writ petition, written statement has been filed in which it has been pleaded that it was in the years 1962 63 and 1972-73, that adverse reports about integrity/honesty were awarded to the petitioner and on that account he could be prematurely retired from service. In nutsthell, the stand of the respondents is that even if during the last tea years' service, the reports of the petitioner were good, he could still be retired from service as he had been awarded two adverse reports about this integrity/honesty one fifteen years and the other twenty-five years ago Such a plea cannot be countenanced in view of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments because no Government servant can be retired from service on the basis of stale reports when such a Government servant had been permitted to continue in service for a considerably long period despite those reports.
4. During pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner died on 19th October, 1989, and his legal representatives, namely, Smt. Bhirawan Bai (widow), four sons, Ramesh Chander Makkar, Anil Kumar Makkar, Surender Kumar Makkar and Vinash Kumar Makkar, and two married daughters, Raj Rani and Amita Rani, were allowed to be brought on the record.
5. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 28th November, 1986 (Annexure P. 3) whereby the petitioner has been prematurely retired from service is quashed.
6. Since the petitioner has expired during the pendency of the writ petition, his legal representatives shall be entitled to all the financial benefits flowing from this judgment, by way of arrears of salary, family pension, death-cum-gratuity, etc. in accordance with the rules and ignoring the impugned order set aside by this judgment. The arrears of various amounts to which toe legal representatives of the deceased are found entitled shall be paid to them within a period of three months from today, along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date the same became due till the date of actual payment.
7. The State is also directed to pay the costs of this writ petition which are quantified at Rs. 500/-.