INDRA PRAKASH BHATNAGAR v. STATE OF M P — 1984 DIGILAW 607 (MP)

JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is a miscellaneous petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India for a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ, order of direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner as having validly retired voluntarily from the post of Assistant Director of Industries, borne on the establishment of Office of the Genera! Manager, the District industries Centre, Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as g. M. D. I. C. G. )with effect from 18th October, 1983 under Rule 42 (i) (a) (hereinafter also referred to as clause (a) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension)Rules, 1976 (hereinafter also referred to as the Pension Rules,) in terms of his application dated 5-7-1983 (copy Annexure P/3) addressed by him to the Secretary, the Department of Commerce and Industries M. P. Bhopal (hereinafter also referred to respectively as the Secretary and the department ). ( 2. ) DURING arguments in this Court the learned Deputy Government advocate produced in Court for perusal an office file of the District Indus-tries Centre, Gwalior, 1983, major head dic Gwalior, minor head esta-blishment Branch F. No. DIC Gwalior/establishment /83 dealing with the subject of voluntary retirement of petitioner Indra Bahadur Bhataagar. The counsel of the parties have agreed that this Court may look into the correspondence in this file. I have, therefore, looked into the correspon-dence in the file in order to have a full picture of the facts material to a just decision on the petition. ( 3. ) FROM the recitals at paragraph 3 of the writ petition and the respondents return dated 1-5-1984, it appears that earlier the petitioner had filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh for getting the relief of consideration of his claim for promotion to a higher post. The High Court allowed the writ petition on 11-8-1981. It appears that then the petitioner had also filed a petition initiating a Contempt of Court proceeding against the non-petitioners in the earlier case (The present respondents have urged that the petitioner was considered and was found unfit for promotion ). ( 4. ) ADMITTEDLY the petitioner has completed about 33 years of Government service which includes a period of more than 20 years qualifying service in the Department. ( 5. ( 4. ) ADMITTEDLY the petitioner has completed about 33 years of Government service which includes a period of more than 20 years qualifying service in the Department. ( 5. ) IT is not in dispute that while working on the post of Assistant director at the District Industry Centre, Gwalior, on 14-12-1982 the petitioner sent telegrams to the Secretary and the Director of Industries M. P. , bhopal. Its contents are as follows : - "not WILLING TO SERVE ANY MORE DUE TO ILL health. ALLOW RETIREMENT 1st MARCH 1983 bhatnagar". ( 6. ) UNDER Secretary of the Department of Commerce and Industries m. P. Government informed the petitioner by a letter No. 1948 /5883/ii/c/ 82 Bhopal dated the 23rd February 1983 (Annexure R/7) that he should give an application in Form 28 of the M. P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 in connection with his (the petitioners) endorsement dated 14-12-1982. ( 7. ) THE correspondence between the petitioner and his superior officers that followed the aforementioned telegram produced no result. ( 8. ) THE petitioner sent a letter dated 5-7 1983 to the Secretary Department of Commerce and Industry, M. P. Bhopal with reference to the Under secretarys letter dated 23-2-1983 (Annexure R/7 ). The copy of the petitioners letter dated 5-7-1983 (Annexure R/3) ( 9. ) IT is not disputed that the letter dated 5-7-1983 (the original of annexure P/3) did reach the Secretary Department of Commerce and industry, M. P. Bhopal. The respondents have not controverted the fact that the letter was received by the Secretary on 11-7-1983. ( 10. ) THE Sheet No. 12 in the office file of the office of General Manager (The D. I. C. Gwalior) endorsed copy of the following letter from the joint Director of Industries, Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as the J. D. I.)to the Director of Industries (Establishment Branch) Madhya Pradesh, bhopal: ( 11. ) ON receiving the copy of the aforementioned letter of the 3 D. I. the G. M. (D. I. C. Gwalior) wrote a letter No. 5065 dated 8-8-1983 (Annexure-R) to the petitioner which runs as follows: ( 12. ) OSTENSIBLY in reply to the aforementioned letter dated 8-8-1983 (Annexure R/3) the petitioner submitted a letter dated 16-8-1983 in the office of the General Manager (the D. I. C.) Gwalior which is the sheet no. 14 in the office file. ) OSTENSIBLY in reply to the aforementioned letter dated 8-8-1983 (Annexure R/3) the petitioner submitted a letter dated 16-8-1983 in the office of the General Manager (the D. I. C.) Gwalior which is the sheet no. 14 in the office file. Pinned to the original letter dated 16-8-1983 is a duly filled in Form 28 (consisting of two sheets numbered 15 and 16 of the office file) bearing the petitioners signature and dated the 5-7-1983 at the end of sheet No. 16. In the Form No. 28 the petitioner expressed his desire to retire from Government Service under clause (a) of sub-rule (i) of rule 42 of the M. P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 with effect from 18th October 1983. ( 13. ) ON 21-11-1983 the petitioner sent a letter (Annexure P /5a) to the secretary, Department of Industries, M. P. Bhopal which runs as follows: ( 14. ) THE Secretarys written reply sent on 30-12-83, (Annexure R/4)to the petitioner runs as under- ( 15. ) THE petitioner then sent a notice dated 16-1-1984 through his counsel to his respondents (Annexure P/6) praying for the reliefs that the petitioner be treated as having retired voluntarily with effect from 18-10-83 and that his pension papers may be prepared and gratuity be paid to him saying that the petitioner would be obliged to file a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution if his demands were not met. ( 16. ) THE petitioners contention is that the aforementioned reliefs have been denied to him illegally, wilfully and with a view to harassing him for his having filed the earlier writ petition. (M. P. 205/80) and for having initiated a contempt of Court proceeding against the respondents in that case. ( 17. ) THE respondents case is that the petitioners telegram dated 14-12-1982 not being in accordance with Rule 42 (i) (a) of the Pension Rules 1976 could not in law be given effect to. ( 18. ) THE respondents contention is that the petitioners letter dated 5-7-1983 (vide Annexure P/3) addressed to the Secretary did not accompany duly filled in Form No. 28. They urged that the petitioner had been asked several times after 5-7-1983 to furnish a duly filled in Form-28. The petitioner then sent a filled in Form 28 with his letter dated 21-11-1983 (Annexure P/5 ). They urged that the petitioner had been asked several times after 5-7-1983 to furnish a duly filled in Form-28. The petitioner then sent a filled in Form 28 with his letter dated 21-11-1983 (Annexure P/5 ). But this was not in accordance with the Rule 42 (i) (a)because the desired date of retirement namely 18-10-1983 had already expired. Thereafter the petitioner did not submit a fresh application in accordance with Rule 42 (i) (a) to the State Government despite receipt of the Secretarys letter dated 30-11-1983 (vide Annexure R/4 ). Hence the petitioner could not be treated as having validly retired voluntarily under rule 42 (i) (a ). The respondents point out that in fact the petitioner had attended the office of the District Industries Centre, Gwalior upto 20th october 1983 and had applied for leave for 3 months with effect from 21st october 1983. The respondents denied that there has been any mala fide in the respondents refusal to recognise the validity of the petitioners intimation for voluntary retirement under Rule 42 (i) (a) with effect from 18-10-1983. ( 19. ) THE first point for determination is whether the petitioner stood retired voluntarily under Rule 42 (i) (a) of the Pension Rules 1976 with effect from 18-10-1983. ( 20. ) THE Pension Rules 1976 came into force on the 1st June 1976, as declared by sub-rule (2) of rule 1 thereof, and these rules admittedly govern the case before me. Rule 42 of the said Rules has been relied upon by both the parties. ( 21. ) RULE 33 in Chapter 7 needs a mention. It says that a retiring pension shall be granted to Government servant who retires, or is retired in advance of the age of compulsory retirement, in accordance with the provisions of rule 42 of the Pension Rules, 1976, or rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules. ( 22. ) I am reproducing below the provisions contained in Rule 42 (i) (2)and (3) and Form 28, which is referred to in Rule 42 (i) (a) and Notes 1, 2 and 4 (set out after the proviso to clause (b) of sub-rule (i) of rule (42) and is one of the forms appended to the Pension Rules supplying emphasis to such expressions and words as found appropriate. 42. Retirement on completion of 20/25 years qualifying service. 42. Retirement on completion of 20/25 years qualifying service. " (i) Government servant may retire at any time after completing 20 years qualifying service, by giving a notice in form 28 to the appointing authority at least three month before the date on which he wishes to retire or on payment by him of pay and allowances for the period of three months or for the period of which the notice actually given by him falls short of three months. Provided that where the Government servant giving such notice is under suspension, he shall not be allowed to retire from service without the prior permission in writing of the appointing authority. (b) The appointing authority may in the public interest require a government servant to retire from service at any time after he has completed 25 years qualifying service with the approval of the State government by giving him three months notice in Form 29. Provided that such Government servant may be retired forthwith and on such retirement the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing then immediately before his retirement oh as the case may be, for the period by which such notice fall short of three months. "form 28" to----------Whereas, I have completed 20 years qualifying service and now desire to retire from Government service under clause (a) of sub-rule (i)of rule 42 of the Madhya Pradesh civil Services a notice whereof is hereby given accordingly. OR Whereas, I have completed 20 years qualifying service and now desire to retire from Government service under clause (a) of sub-rule (i)of rule 42 of the Madhya Pradesh civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 with effect from. . . . . . . . . . . . (paper torn)whereof is hereby given accordingly. And whereas the period of this notice falls short of days the pay and allowances for the days aforesaid have been credited under challan no. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . dated. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . copy whereof is enclosed herewith. And whereas the period of this notice falls short of days the pay and allowances for the days aforesaid have been credited under challan no. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . dated. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . copy whereof is enclosed herewith. OR Whereas, I have completed 20 years qualifying service and now desire to retire from Government service under clause (a) of sub-rule (i) of rule 42 of the Madhya pradesh Civil Services ( Pension )Rules, 1976 forthwith that is to say. . . . . . . . a notice whereof is hereby given accordingly. The pay and allowances for three months have been credited under challan No. . . . . . . . . . dated. . . . . . . . a copy whereof is enclosed in lieu of three months notice as required by the said clause. Dated. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Signature and Designation of the Government servant. Note:-Before a Government servant serves notice of retirement under clause (a) above he should satisfy himself by means of a reference to the appointing authority that he has in fact, completed 20 years qualifying service for pension. Similarly the appointing authority. While giving notice of retirement to a Government servant under clause (b) above should also satisfy itself. The Government servant has, in fact completed 26 years qualifying service. The appointing authority may obtain report from the accountant General Madhya Pradesh about. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . qualifying service of the Government servant, if necessary. Note No. 2:-The period of notice of three months or the notice. period which is short of three months, as the case may be shall be reckoned from the date on which it is signed and put in communication under registered post. Where the notice is served personally, the period shall be reckoned from the date of receipt thereof. Note No. 3 :-The Government servant on submission of an application shall be granted such leave during the period of notice to which he is entitled according to rules. Provided that no leave shall be granted beyond the expiry of the period of notice. Note No. 3 :-The Government servant on submission of an application shall be granted such leave during the period of notice to which he is entitled according to rules. Provided that no leave shall be granted beyond the expiry of the period of notice. Note: - Regarding counting of the period for calculating pension for which pay in lieu of notice is paid and for payment of pension during this period rule 36 (2) (C) shall apply. (2) A Government servant who has elected to retire under this rule and has given the necessary intimation to that effect to the appointing authority shall be precluded from withdrawing his election subsequently except with the specific approval of such authority on consideration of the circumstances of the case to withdraw the notice given by him : Provided that the request for withdrawal shall be prior to the intended date of his retirement. (3) Where the notice of retirement has been served by appointing authority on the Government servant it may be withdrawn if so desired for adequate reasons, provided that the Government servant concerned is agreeable. ( 23. ) IT is undisputed that the petitioner had completed about 32 years in Government service including more than 20 years qualifying service well before the 5th July 1983, when he was on the post of an Assistant Director of Industries, borne on the establishment of the office of the General manager of the District Industry Centre, Gwalior in the Department of commerce and Industry, of the State Government of Madhya Pradesh and that he was not under suspension on the 5th July 1983, and as such on the 5th July 1983 he could avail of the statutory provisions in sub-clause (a) of sub-rule (i) of rule 42 (hereinafter referred to as sub-clause (a) of the Pension Rules, 1976 to elect to retire thereunder. ( 24. ) THE first factor to be located and isolated for determination is the nature of the thing to which a Government servant like the petitioner-is entitled under sub-clause (a) (3 ). First it is a right conferred by a statutory rule and as such its exercise by a Government cannot be defeated by the appointing authority of the said Government servant or any officer superior to the Government at its or his sweet will and on any consideration of grounds extraneous to the provisions of clause (a ). First it is a right conferred by a statutory rule and as such its exercise by a Government cannot be defeated by the appointing authority of the said Government servant or any officer superior to the Government at its or his sweet will and on any consideration of grounds extraneous to the provisions of clause (a ). The right guaranteed under clause (a) is indefeasible. Second the expression that a Government servant may retire at any time after completing 20 years qualifying service" shows that the election to retire is that of the Government servant alone not preconditioned by any extraneous factor inclusive of will or desire of any authority or superior officer of the Government servant. In short the election to retire is a subjective factor viz. , the volition of the Government servant. In short, it is an absolute right in the sense that the Government servants election to retire cannot be questioned or that he cannot be called upon to account for or explain his motive or purpose of his decision to retire. ( 25. ) THE aforementioned conclusion is reinforced by the proviso to clause (a) in so far as even a Government servant under suspension is not precluded from electing to retire and to send a notice to his appointing authority under clause (a ). The requirement of obtaining the prior permission of the appointing authority is insisted upon by the proviso only after the Government servants election to retire is formed and its exercise is manifested and communicated to the appointing authority in terms of clause (a ). The eventuality that the appointing authority may refuse to allow the Government servant under suspension to retire is clearly envisaged in the proviso, but that is in the nature of a statutory hiatus towards the fruition of an election in the volition of the Government servant and expressed and communicated to his appointing in terms of clause (a) just as in the case of a Government servant not under suspension. ( 26. ) THE conclusion that the right under clause (a) is an absolute one receives yet another confirmation in sub rule (2) of rule 42 which tells the government servant in clear but ominous terms that his election to retire once exercised and then communicated to his appointing authority cannot be withdrawn by him subsequently. ( 26. ) THE conclusion that the right under clause (a) is an absolute one receives yet another confirmation in sub rule (2) of rule 42 which tells the government servant in clear but ominous terms that his election to retire once exercised and then communicated to his appointing authority cannot be withdrawn by him subsequently. In effect such an election on the part of the Government to retire once expressed, and communicated to his appointing authority amounts to bruning of his service boat by the Government servant concerned. Even the appointing authority had been given no power to check or delay, let alone call a halt to the inexorable legal consequence, viz. the retirement of the Government servant on a date specified by him in his notice. Unless the Government servant himself makes a request for withdrawal (of his notice of retirement) to the appointing authority then only the appointing authority has been given a power to permit withdrawal of the notice of retirement by giving specific approval to the said withdrawal on consideration of the circumstances of the case. ( 27. ) IT is, therefore, such a statutory right, indefeasible and absolute in nature that is enshrined in clause (a) of sub-rule (i) of Rule 42 of the civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. ( 28. ) THE next factor is the choice of the Government servant of the date of his retirement. Now the first part of clause (a) of sub-rule (i) of rule 42 says that a Government may retire at any time which falls after completing the period of 20 year* qualifying service. The second part of clause (a) of sub-rule (i) of Rule 42 gives the Government servant a wide choice. He may choose "to retire on the date of his notice. He may also choose to retire on the date of expiry of a period of three months, the beginning of which period is reckonable in accordance with note 2 below sub-rule (i) of rule 42, or any date within the aforementioned period of 3 months or any date following after a period of 3 months from the date of the giving of the notice under clause (a) but in such a case -understandably-before the date of his superannuation. ( 29. ( 29. ) NOW where a Government servant chooses to retire on the date of sending of the notice under clause (a) or on a date which falls after the date of sending or on a date which falls before expiry of a period of three months, he has to make payment of pay and allowances respectively for a period of three months or for the period by which the notice period falls short of a period of three months in both cases reckoning of the beginning of the period of three months will be done in accordance with note 2, which is the second of the four Notes set out after the end of clause (b) of sub-rule (i) of Rule 42. However, even in these two cases it is the Government servants choice of the date of his retirement which determines the date of his retirement under clause (a ). ( 30. ) THE provisions requiring the Government servant to make a payment of his pay and allowances in the two cases referred to above does not control or restrict the Government servants choice of the date of his retirement. This is so, because clause (a) nowhere says that a notice sent thereunder by a Government servant to his appointing authority has to be a notice for any period whatsoever: it speaks of giving of a notice of at least three months before the date on which a Government servant wishes to retire. Now, clause (a) does not require that a notice issued there under has to state a time-gap between the date of the giving of the notice to make the notice valid or effective in a case where the date of retirement chosen by the Government servant falls after the date of giving of the notice but before the date on which the period of three months, reckoned from the date of the notice expires. In other words there is no requirement of the kind found in section 80 (i) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 where a notice gives a right of suit to a suitor only on expiration of two months next after notice in writing is served on the persons mentioned in section 80 (1) Civil Procedure Code. ( 31. In other words there is no requirement of the kind found in section 80 (i) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 where a notice gives a right of suit to a suitor only on expiration of two months next after notice in writing is served on the persons mentioned in section 80 (1) Civil Procedure Code. ( 31. ) TO sum up, it is the Government servants choice of the date of his retirement under clause (a) of sub-rule (i) of rule 42 of the M. P. Civil services Rules, 1976 which determines the date of his retirement, and that the notices validity does not depend upon there being any averment therein that it is a three months notice or a notice for a period shorter and expressed time span-wise. ( 32. ) MOREOVER, in Dinesh Chandra v. State of Assam, AIR 1978 SC 17 , it was held : "the High Court committed an error of law in holding that consent of the Government was necessary to give legal effect to the voluntary retirement of the appellant under F. R. 56 (c ). Since the conditions of f. R. 56 (C) are fulfilled in the instant case the appellant must be held to have lawfully retired as notified by him with effect from 2nd August, 1976. " ( 33. ) IT is, therefore, clear that the notice under clause (a), if otherwise in accordance with the provisions of clause (a) does not require any order or acceptance by the appointing authority, unless the case is covered by the proviso to clause (a) or the sub-rule (i) of Rule 42. This position will govern the case before me if it is found that the petitioner did send a notice in terms of clause (a) of sub-rule (i) of Rule 42. ( 34. ) NOW, I turn to the disputed fact viz. whether the petitioners application dated 5-7-1983 addressed to the Secretary and admittedly reaching him on 11-7-1983 had annexed to it a notice (in Form 28) under clause (a) of sub-rule (i) of Rule 42 communicating his desire to retire on 18-10-1983. ( 35. ( 34. ) NOW, I turn to the disputed fact viz. whether the petitioners application dated 5-7-1983 addressed to the Secretary and admittedly reaching him on 11-7-1983 had annexed to it a notice (in Form 28) under clause (a) of sub-rule (i) of Rule 42 communicating his desire to retire on 18-10-1983. ( 35. ) THE petitioner has filed an affidavit in support of his averments (in the writ petition) to the effect that he sent the requisite information required by clause (a) of sub-rule (i) of Rule 42 in Form 28 as an enclosure to his letter dated 5-7-1983. ( 36. ) THE letters carbon-copy endorsed to the General Manager, the district Industries Centre, Gwalior (vide sheet No. 11 in his office file produced in this Court) bears the carbon impression of the typed endorsement to the effect that the letters enclosure was a pro forma in Form No. 28. This shows that the original letter dated 5-8-1983 must have borne such an endorsement on it. ( 37. ) THE respondents have not produced the original letter in this Court to disprove the existence of an endorsement on it about a Form no. 28 being enclosed with the letter. ( 38. ) THE affidavit of the Officer-in-charge of the case in this proceeding (G. P. Shrivastava, the General Manager, The District Industries centre, Gwalior) does not show that he opened the envelope containing the petitioners original letter dated 5-7-1983 (addressed to the Secretary ). ( 39. ) THE respondents did not file any counter-affidavit of the Secretary or any officer or any clerk employed in the Secretariat as the case might have been to vouch on oath that on opening the envelope containing the petitioners letter it did not contain any Form 28 as its (the letters)enclosure. No explanation for non-submission has been given in Court. ( 40. ) THE respondents did not file the first entry made in the Secretariat on the note sheet on receipt of the petitioners letter dated 5-7-1983. The entry or its authenticated copy would have also served as a piece of documentary evidence in support of the respondents stand that Form 28 was found enclosed with the petitioners letter. No explanation is forthcoming for non-production of such an important piece of documentary evidence. ( 41. The entry or its authenticated copy would have also served as a piece of documentary evidence in support of the respondents stand that Form 28 was found enclosed with the petitioners letter. No explanation is forthcoming for non-production of such an important piece of documentary evidence. ( 41. ) IN paragraph 12 of my order I have mentioned that the office file of the office of the General Manager, The District Industries Centre, gwalior has in it the petitioners letter dated 16-8-19 3 addressed to the aforesaid General Manager (Sheet No. 14) and a Form No. 28 dated 5-7-1983 (Sheet Nos. 15 and 16) addressed to the Secretary under the petitioners signature in which there is an intimation of his desire to retire from 18-10-1983. ( 42. ) IT is significant that the petitioners letter (Sheet No. 14) its carbon copy is Annexure P/4 contains an averment that he was enclosing a copy of the Form No. 28 which had been sent by him (the petitioner) to the Secretary. ( 43. ) THE petitioners averments in the letter dated 16-8-1983 coupled with his conduct in furnishing a copy of the Form No. 28 also afford strong corroboration to the petitioners contention that he enclosed the Form no. 28 (intimating therein his desire to retire on 18-10-1983) with his letter dated 5-7-1983 addressed to the Secretary. ( 44. ) WHAT is more, there was no conceivable advantage to the petitioner in not sending a duly filled in Form No. 28 with his letter dated 5-7-1983 when his conduct upto 5-7-1983 shows that he had in fact communicated his desire to go on voluntary retirement as far back as 10-12-1982 as evidenced by the admitted fact that he had sent a telegram to the Secretary. This circumstance furnished another piece of evidence in support of his contention that he did send Form No. 28 along with his letter dated 5-7-1983 addressed to the Secretary. ( 45. ) I, therefore, find it proved that the petitioner did enclose a form No. 28 with his letter dated 5-7-1983 both addressed to the Secretary and that in Form No. 28 there was his expressed desire to retire on 18-10-1983. ( 46. ( 45. ) I, therefore, find it proved that the petitioner did enclose a form No. 28 with his letter dated 5-7-1983 both addressed to the Secretary and that in Form No. 28 there was his expressed desire to retire on 18-10-1983. ( 46. ) IN the aforementioned fact situation, the legal position in accordance with the provisions in clause (a) of sub-rule (i) of Rule 42 of the m. P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 as given effect to in the light of the statement of law in Dinesh Chandra v. State of Assam (supra) is that the petitioner stood in the eye of law validly retired on 18-10-1983 by virtue of the provisions contained in clause (a) of sub-rule (i) of Rule 42 of the M. P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 and was, therefore, entitled to receive pension under Rule 33 of the aforementioned Rules. ( 47. ) THE facts that on 10-10-1983 the petitioner applied for earned leave for 3 months or that he attended the office of the General Manager (The D. I C, Gwalior) and signed the Attendance Register till 20-10-1983 or that he was subsequently paid salary till 20-10-1983 cannot alter the position in the law that the petitioner stood validly retired as explained in the previous paragraph. ( 48. ) I, therefore, allow petitioner I. P. Bhatnagars petition under article 226 and declare that he validly retired on 18-10-1983 in accordance with the provisions of clause (a) of sub-rule (i) of the M. P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. It is further ordered that the respondents are bound to give effect to the aforementioned declaration by treating the petitioner as validly retired as aforesaid and they shall pay pension, gratuity etc. to him in accordance with the relevant rules in the Pension Rules, 1976 and supplementary instructions, if any. This be done in four months from today. Appropriate writs be issued to the respondents in terms of the aforementioned directions. The petitioner shall receive costs of this proceeding from the respondents. Counsels fees Rs. 250. The outstanding amount of the security deposit be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.