Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 23 April, 2024
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054995
CWP-29050-2022 -1- 2024:PHHC:054995
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(253)
CWP-29050-2022
Date of decision: - 23.04.2024
Balwinder Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present:- Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Neha Sonawane, DAG, Punjab.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the impugned order dated 27.05.2022 (Annexure P-5) whereby
the claim of the petitioner for grant of proportionate pension has been
rejected being in contravention to Rule 6.16A(2) of the Punjab Civil
Services Rules, Volume-2, Chapter VI.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner was appointed on the post of Canal Patwari in the physically
challenged category vide appointment letter dated 20.03.2002 and the
petitioner joined the post on 01.04.2002 and was thereafter promoted to
the post of Assistant Revenue Clerk in the year 2007 and had further been
promoted to the post of Revenue Clerk in the year 2013 and remained
posted at Bathinda Canal Division Bathinda. It is further submitted that
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054995
CWP-29050-2022 -2- 2024:PHHC:054995
the petitioner had sought voluntary retirement from service vide letter
dated 12.07.2018 (Annexure P-1) along with a demand draft of
Rs.1,53,033/- in lieu of three months notice and the authorities vide letter
dated 20.02.2020 (Annexure P-2) had accepted the said application and
permitted the petitioner to retire voluntarily w.e.f. 12.07.2018. It is stated
that it is not in dispute that the petitioner had completed more than 16
years of service on the date of his retirement and as per Rule 6.16A(2) of
the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-2, Chapter VI, the petitioner
was entitled to proportionate pension. For the said purpose, learned
counsel for the petitioner has made a specific reference to the said rule,
which is reproduced herein below: -
"SECTION III.-REVISED PENSION RULES
A-GRATUITY AND PENSION
6.16. A Government employee retiring in accordance with
the provisions of these rules before completing the qualifying
service of ten years shall not be entitled to any pension but he shall
be entitled to a service gratuity calculated at the uniform rate of
half month‟s emoluments for every completed six monthly period of
service.
6.16-A. (1) Full pension to a Government employee, who
retires on or after the 1st day of December, 2011, in accordance
with the provisions of these rules, shall be admissible after
rendering a qualifying service of twenty-five years and shall be
calculated at the rate of fifty per cent of emoluments or average
emoluments, whichever is more beneficial to him:
Provided that the pension so calculated shall, in no case be,
less than three thousand and five hundred rupees per month.
(2) In case the qualifying service of a Government employee
is ten years or more but less than twenty-five years, the amount of
pension shall be such proportion of the maximum pension
admissible under sub-rule (1) as the qualifying service rendered by
him bears to the maximum qualifying service of twenty-five years:"
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054995
CWP-29050-2022 -3- 2024:PHHC:054995
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that once the
application for voluntary retirement of the petitioner had been accepted
and the duration of service of the petitioner was more than 10 years and
less than 25 years, on that ground also, the petitioner was entitled to a
proportion of the maximum pension payable. It is further argued that till
date the said proportionate pension has not been released to the petitioner
on account of which the petitioner is facing great financial difficulty. It is
stated that vide the impugned order (Annexure P-5), the Senior Accounts
Officer has observed that the matter is required to be re-examined and
while passing the said order, the Senior Accounts Officer has not taken
into consideration the provisions of Rule 6.16A(2) (supra), inasmuch as,
even in case the authorities were of the opinion that the petitioner did not
have 20 years of qualifying service or had not attained the age of 50
years, then also, the proportionate pension as per Rule 6.16A (supra) was
required to be released to the petitioner. In support of his arguments,
learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court
in case titled as "Geeta Devi Vs. State of Punjab" reported as 2014(13)
SCT 770. It is submitted that at any rate, since the matter has not been
re-examined after the passing of the impugned order by the Senior
Accounts Officer, the competent authority of respondent No.1-State is
required to finally consider the prayer of the petitioner and while doing
so, the provisions of Rule 6.16A (supra) and the law laid down in the
above-said judgment be also taken into consideration.
4. Learned State counsel has submitted that since, as per the
impugned order, the matter was to be re-examined, thus, the competent
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054995
CWP-29050-2022 -4- 2024:PHHC:054995
authority of respondent No.1-State would take a final decision on the
same within a period of two months from today and would also consider
the provisions of Rule 6.16A (supra) while re-examining the matter.
5. Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, the
present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to competent authority
of respondent No.1-State to consider the prayer of the petitioner for the
grant of proportionate pension within a period of two months from today
and while considering the same, the respondent authorities would take
into consideration the provisions of Rule 6.16A of the Punjab Civil
Services Rules, Volume-2, Chapter VI as well as the judgment relied
upon the learned counsel for the petitioner in Geeta Devi's case (supra)
and also the fact that the petitioner has rendered more than 16 years of
service and is also physically handicapped. After considering the above-
mentioned, in case the petitioner is found entitled, necessary relief be
released to him immediately without delay and in case the petitioner is not
found entitled to the relief or some part of the same, then, a speaking
order rejecting the same be passed within the aforesaid period of two
months.
6. It is made clear that the plea of the petitioner with respect to
payment of interest is kept open, as the same would be dependent upon
the decision taken by the respondent-authorities and its legality.
( VIKAS BAHL )
April 23, 2024 JUDGE
naresh.k
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
4 of 4
