LexHANS RAJ versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B
c
D
E
F
G
HANS RAJ
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
October 26, 1984
[D. A. DESAI AND D. P. MADON, JJ.J
Punjab Civil Service (l'remature Retirement) Rules
1975,
Rt,/e 3 (1)
(a}-Premature retirement of government servant-QuaHfying service w1ongly
computed-Whether the order complies with the pri1nary pre-requisites of
the rule.
(ii) Premature Retirement of government servant-Impugned order did
not mention that power was exercised in public interest-Whether amounts to
non-application uf mind and vitiates the order.
The appellant joined service as a clerk in the erstwhile Patiala and
East Punjab States Union (PEPSU) on 2nd Sept. 1949.
Boing a tempo·
rary employee, he was discharged from service on 30th September 1953.
On 22nd February, 1954, be was again recruited as a clerk and later on
promoted as senior clerk.
The PEPS U government sanctioned condonation
of break from Oct. I, 1953 to Pcb, 21, 1954 in the service of the appel-
lant under Note to sub-para (iii) of para l Aooexure 'B' or the Pepsu
Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1955 for the purpose of issuing
quasi-permanent Certificate only.
On the reorganisation or Punjab State
in 1966 the appellant came to be allocated to Punjab State.
On 20th
August, 1975 the Deputy Commissioner or Bhatinda, in exercise of the
power conferred by Rule 3(1) (a) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature
Retirement) Rules, 197S passed an order prematurely retiring the appellant
from service on the ground that he had completed more than 25 years of
service.
The appellant cha11enged the said order before the High Court
on the ground {i) That he could not have been retired under Rule 3(1J as
he had not completed 2 S years of service; and (ii) that the
impugned
order of premature retirement suffered from the vice of non-application of
mind inasmuch as it did not state that the power of prematurely retiring
the appellant wac; exercised in public interest.
The respondent contended
(j) that the appellant had completed more than 25 years of service
because the break in service was condoned by the PEPSU Govt; and (ii)
that the power of prematurely retiring the appellant was exercised in public
interest.
The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition holding that once
the break in service was condoned, the appellant had completed 2S years
of service and therefore the pre•requisite for exercise of power under Rule
3( I) (a) was satisfied.
The appellant contended before this court ( 1) that the order sane·
H
tioniog the condonatioo of break in service of the appellant was for
<.
•
HANS RAJ v. PUNiAil
10.jj
the
limited purpose of granting quasi-permanent status
and issuing
A
quasi-permanent certificate
only and that the condonation of break
in service
did not qualify for pension as observed by
the Accountant
General of Punjab in his memo addressed to the S.D.O. Bbutioda and
therefore the High Court was in error in holding that the appe!lant had
put in 25 yenrs of qualifying service on the date of the impugned order;
and (ii) the order suffers from the vice of complete non-application ·or
mind inasmuch as in the impugned order there is not the slightest whisper
B
that the power was exercised in public interest.
Allowing the appeal by the a pp ell ant,
HELD : 0) Rule 3(1) (a) of the Premature Retirement Rule•
confers
power on the
appropriate authority
to retire any employee,
if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so, on the
date on which he completes 25 years of qualifying service or attained 50
years of age. Therefore, the appropriate authority must first make up its
mind th&t it is in public interest to retire the employee. Once having reached
that satisfaction, it must further find out whether the concerned employee
bas on the rel'.!vant date ·completed 25 years of qualifying service or whether
he has attained the age of 50 years.
In the former case it is not 2S years
of service but it is 25 years of qualifying service which must have been
completed on the date of premlture retirement.
The power can be
exercised on the date on which one of the two alternative fact situation
becomes available or on any date thereafter.
The expression cqua1ifying
service, has been defined in rule 2(1) of the Premature Retirement Rules
to mean rservice qualifying for pension•.
Condition No. 2 ia para 4.23
of Chapter IV of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, which deal with condona-
tion of interruExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.