Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 183 (HP)

Parmjit Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2024-03-18

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2024
JUDGMENT : AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J. 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “(a) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to deem the petitioner to have retired from the government service w.e.f. 31.05.2023 (?.?.) and his application/notice (Annexure P-2) dated 01.03.2023 may kindly be deemed to have been accepted by the appointing authority from the date of expiry of specified period of notice strictly in accordance with the provisions of Rule 48-A (2) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and in the terms of the judgment dated 22.01.2021 delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 2760 of 2010 (Annexure P-7) and accordingly, due and admissible pension/pensionary benefits and other retiral dues may kindly be ordered to be sanctioned/authorized and released in favour of the petitioner within a time-bound manner. In case of delayed payments, the respondents be further directed to pay interest @ 9% per annum for delayed payments of retiral dues and justice be done. (b) To quash and set aside the office order dated 26.05.2023 (Annexure P-3) which was passed by respondent No. 3.” 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also carefully gone through the pleadings. 3. The case of the petitioner for pre-mature retirement has been rejected by the Authority, in terms of order dated 26.05.2023 (Annexure P-3), relevant portion whereof reads as under: “Now, therefore, I have gone through the pre-mature retirement application of Inspector Paramjit Singh, (ECC/AB) of Bilaspur District, PHQ Letter No. Pen.3-207 SP Bilaspur, 2023-PHQ-8497 dated 06.05.2023 and the comments offered by the S.P. Bilaspur and found that a case i.e. CWP No. 453 of 2023, titled as Paramjit Singh vs. State of H.P. and Others, has been filed by Inspector Paramjit Singh in the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. which is pending adjudication for decision. Hence, the application of pre-mature retirement submitted by Inspector Paramjit Singh (ECC/AB) is hereby rejected as per the provisions laid down vide clause 4(2d) of the HP Civil Services (pre-mature retirement) Rules 2022.” 4. Hence, the application of pre-mature retirement submitted by Inspector Paramjit Singh (ECC/AB) is hereby rejected as per the provisions laid down vide clause 4(2d) of the HP Civil Services (pre-mature retirement) Rules 2022.” 4. Though, there was a challenge to the Authority of the Officer concerned to have had passed the order on the ground that he was not the appointing Authority of the petitioner, but, in the course of hearing of this petition, this ground of challenge was given up by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily argued that rejection of the case of the petitioner for pre-mature retirement on the ground that a writ petition filed by the petitioner was pending is not sustainable in law for the reason that it was not as if there was a case filed by the Department against the petitioner, which was pending, and the petitioner was seeking pre-mature retirement to get rid of the said litigation. Learned counsel further stated that the writ was pertaining to some recoveries, which was effected by the Department and feeling aggrieved, the petitioner had exercised his legal right by filing the writ petition, which incidentally was later on withdrawn, in terms of Annexure P-4, appended with the petition on 31.05.2023, just five days after the passing of the impugned order. 6. Learned Additional Advocate General on the other hand argued that as on the day when the order was passed by the Authority, there was litigation pending between the Department and the employee, therefore, the order under challenge cannot be assailed by the petitioner. He further stated that whether or not an employee has to be granted pre-mature retirement is the discretion vested with the employer and herein as the discretion stands exercised by the employer, therefore, also the view of the employer cannot be substituted by the Court. Accordingly, he has prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. In my considered view, there is force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, he has prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. In my considered view, there is force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though, this Court agrees with the submissions made by learned Additional Advocate General that whether or not, request of an employee for pre-mature retirement is to be allowed, is upto the discretion vested with the employer and a Court cannot substitute its view for that of the employer, but, then, while exercising this discretion the employer has to act in a prudent manner and decision thereupon has to be taken on the basis of relevant consideration. 8. Coming back to the facts of this case, a perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that the only reason which weighed with the authority while rejecting the case of the petitioner for pre-mature retirement was the fact that, CWP No. 453 of 2023, titled as Paramjit Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, filed by the petitioner was pending adjudication. 9. This Court is of the considered view that the Authority concerned erred in not appreciating that as the writ petition in issue, was filed by the petitioner himself against the Department, the same could not have acted as an impediment in the pre-mature retirement of the petitioner, because, here, it was not a case where the Department had filed certain cases against the petitioner and in order to evade that particular litigation or proceedings against him, the petitioner was seeking pre-mature retirement. Therefore, as the consideration that led to the rejection of the application for pre-mature retirement is not sustainable in law, this writ petition is allowed by setting aside order dated 26.05.2023, with further direction to the Authority concerned to have a fresh look at the application of the petitioner for pre-mature retirement in accordance with law. 10. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner after submitting the application has not joined his duties as he was legitimately expecting that his prayer would be allowed by the learned employer. Be that as it may, this Court hopes and expects that while dealing with the application of the petitioner seeking pre-mature retirement, the Authority shall view the said request of the petitioner sympathetically. Be that as it may, this Court hopes and expects that while dealing with the application of the petitioner seeking pre-mature retirement, the Authority shall view the said request of the petitioner sympathetically. Let needful be now positively done on the application of the petitioner within four weeks from today after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.