Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1519 (HP)

Trilok Chand v. Union of India

2015-10-15

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir 1. The appellant writ petitioner has questioned the judgment and order, dated 14.09.2010, made by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 1544 of 2009, titled as Trilok Chand versus Union of India & others (for short "the impugned judgment) to the extent of not granting the service benefits salary for the period with effect from 01.05.2007 to 31.08.2009, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. The appellant writ petitioner was compulsorily retired from service in terms of order, dated 30.04.2007 (Annexure P10), constraining him to file appeal (Annexure P11) before the appellate authority, which too was rejected in terms of Annexure P12. 3. Though, the appellant writ petitioner was granted all service benefits including the pensionary benefits in terms of Annexure P13, but, feeling aggrieved, he questioned Annexures P10 and P12 on the grounds taken in the memo of the writ petition. The writ petition was resisted by the respondents by the medium of reply. The learned Single Judge, after examining the pleadings and the law applicable, allowed the writ petition and quashed Annexure P10, but has held that the appellant writ petitioner was not entitled to monetary benefits for the period he was out of service. 4. It is apt to record herein that after noticing the fact that Annexure P12 was not mentioned in the operative portion of the impugned judgment, the appellant writ petitioner moved CMP No. 11099 of 2010, which came to be allowed vide order, dated 20.12.2010 and Annexure P12 was also quashed. 5. The respondents have not questioned the impugned judgment on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 6. Challenge in this appeal is limited, as discussed hereinabove. 7. The appellant writ petitioner was out of service because of the act of the respondents, i.e. in view of the compulsory retirement, which has been held to be illegal and stands quashed. 8. It is not the case of the respondents that the appellant writ petitioner was gainfully working during the said period. 9. Keeping in view the facts of the case read with the fact that the appellant writ petitioner has faced departmental inquiry and order of compulsory retirement was made, we deem it proper to direct the respondents to grant 50% of the salary for the period with effect from 01.05.2007 to 31.08.2009 to the appellant writ petitioner. 10. 9. Keeping in view the facts of the case read with the fact that the appellant writ petitioner has faced departmental inquiry and order of compulsory retirement was made, we deem it proper to direct the respondents to grant 50% of the salary for the period with effect from 01.05.2007 to 31.08.2009 to the appellant writ petitioner. 10. Viewed thus, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is modified, as indicated hereinabove. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of accordingly.