Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1692 (PNJ)

Manohar Lal v. State Of Punjab

2008-10-01

PERMOD KOHLI

body2008
Judgment Permod Kohli, J. 1. Petitioner was appointed as Constable in the Punjab Police on 17.12.1970. While in service disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for absence from duty and after the completion of enquiry and other formalities, petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 18.12.1996. An appeal preferred therefrom against the order of dismissal before the Deputy inspector General of Police also came to be dismissed on 19.01.1999. The order of dismissal was challenged by the petitioner in a civil suit. This suit came to be dismissed by the trial Court on 31.10.2001 and Civil First Appeal also met with same fate in terms of order of the Appellate Court dated 02.05.2002. The petitioner preferred Regular Second Appeal before this Court which came to be disposed of vide order dated 09.10.2003 with the following observations: "In the present case, the appellant had rendered about 26 years of service. If his 8 years service which has been forfeited is excluded, then still he had rendered 18 years of service. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid authority of the Honble Apex Court, and also keeping In view of the length of service of the appellant, his case may be considered favourably for the grant of pension within four months on filing a representation within one month. This Regular Second Appeal stands disposed of accordingly." 2. Consequent upon the aforesaid observations of the Court, petitioner made a representation to the respondents. The said representation has been dismissed vide order dated 17.03.2004 attached as Annexure P-7 with the present writ petition. While disposing the representation, the respondents have admitted that the petitioner has served the department for 26 years but he has been awarded major punishment of 12 years of forfeiture of his service on different occasions and about 3 years and 349 days of his service has been treated as leave without pay/non-duty period for various acts of misconducts attributed to him. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner for pensionary benefits stands rejected. It is this order which is impugned in the present petition. The respondents in the writ petition filed, resisted the claim of the petitioner for pensionary benefits on the same ground as indicated in the order dated 17.03.2904. 3. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner for pensionary benefits stands rejected. It is this order which is impugned in the present petition. The respondents in the writ petition filed, resisted the claim of the petitioner for pensionary benefits on the same ground as indicated in the order dated 17.03.2904. 3. The issue involved in the present petition is no more res Integra and is squarely covered, by various judgments of this Court reported as Ram Kumar vs. State of Punjab and others, 2005(2) SCT 388 and Dhan Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, 2008(3) SCT 816 (P&H). The same issue was also, considered by the Honble Supreme Court in case of Chamba Singh vs. State of Punjab and others reported as 1997 Judicial Reports (Labour & Services) SCC 538. The Honble Supreme Court while interpreting Rule 145 of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 wherein the expression "qualifying service" has been defined observed:- "The effect, therefore, of the punishment of forfeiture of two years for the purpose of increments, is that there is deferment of increment or increments over the forfeited period or there is reduction in pay. It does not have any impact on the length of service qualifying for pension which is the qualifying service to be taken into account for the purpose of compulsory retirement. It is contended by the appellant that since Sub- rule (3) of Rule 16.5 provides that on the expiry of the period fixed under Sub-rule (1) or (2) of Rule 16.5, reinstatement is subject to good conduct and it is open to the department to pass a separate order not to reinstate an officer, there is a break in the service of theofficer when an order is passed under Sub-rule (1) or (2). However, reinstatement in the context of Rule 16.5 can refer only to the resumption of service for the purpose of grant of increments. Forfeiture of service, for the grant of increments does not result in termination of employment. Thus, Sub-rule (1) provides for withholding of increments of a police officer on a time-scale as a punishment. There is no reference in this Sub-rule to forfeiture of service. Yet Sub-rule (3) applies to an order "under Sub-rule (I) as much as to an order under Sub-rule (2). Under Sub-rule (2) the forfeiture is expressly of approved service for the purpose of increments. There is no reference in this Sub-rule to forfeiture of service. Yet Sub-rule (3) applies to an order "under Sub-rule (I) as much as to an order under Sub-rule (2). Under Sub-rule (2) the forfeiture is expressly of approved service for the purpose of increments. Such forfeiture may be temporary or permanent. This Rule has no bearing on qualifying service for compulsory/premature retirement." 4. Judgment in the case of Ram Kumar (supra) has been implemented by the respondents vide order dated 03.11.2005. The case of the petitioner is not different from the case of ASI Mohmder Singh and others, who are the petitioners in Ram Kumars case (supra). 5. In the judgments referred to above, ithas been held that notwithstanding the forfeiture by way of punishment, it does not affect the length of service rendered by a public servant and the said service has to be counted as qualifying service for grant of pension. It is not in dispute rather it is admitted case of the respondents that the petitioner rendered 26 years of service. 6. In view of the dictum of the judgments referred to hereinabove, petitioner is found entitled to the pensionary benefits. This petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 17.03.2004 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of Manohar Lal, Constable for grant of pension/ family pension and other retiral benefits on the basis of 26 years of service and pass consequential order within a period of four months from today. Needless to say that all eligible claims of the petitioner shall be released and paid within two months thereafter.