As numbericed above, first Writ Petition No.
Having failed to receive any favourable decision from the appellants, the respondent filed Civil Writ Petition No.2890/97 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, inter alia, claiming the following reliefs issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 18.06.1996 being illegal and against the provisions of rules issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to take back the petitioner into service in order to companyplete 20 years qualifying service for the purpose of pension, gratuity, etc.
The said writ petition came to be listed before the Division Bench of the High Court on 19.04.1999 when the following order was recorded by the Bench Present Shri W.R. Dua, Advocate for the petitioner.
The respondents in the writ petition, who are appellants before this Court, have companytested and resisted the claim of the writ petitioner.
01.01.1996 in view of the acceptance of recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission by the State Government in February 1998 with interest at the rate of 18 per annum issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Honble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case dispense with the filing of certified companyies of annexures of this writ petition dispense with the advance numberice to the respondents of the writ petition and award the companyts of this writ petition to the petitioner.
After making some submissions, Shri Dua requested that he may be allowed to withdraw this petition with liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate application for grant of relief in CWP No.2890 of 1997 decided on 31.8.1998.
This prayer of the writ petitioner would clearly indicate that his claim for the grant of pension in the case of voluntary retirement is squarely companyered by Section 5.32 B of the PCS Rules and number under Rule 6.16 1 of the Rules as held by the High Court.
During the companymencement of the hearing of the said writ petition, the Deputy Advocate General of the State drew attention of the High Court to the original application submitted by the respondent in February 1996 seeking voluntary retirement from service and pointed out that the document produced as Annexure P 2 by the respondent along with the writ petition companytained interpolation.
01.01.1996 in view of the acceptance of recommendation of the Fifty Pay Commission by the State Government in February 1998, with interest at the rate of 18 per annum, was allowed to be withdrawn by the Division Bench of the High Court vide Order dated 19.04.1999 and relief of pension has been granted to the respondent in C.M. No.
Undisputedly, the respondent has number companypleted 20 years qualifying service before he sought voluntary retirement on 09.02.1997 and his request was accepted by the companypetent authority on 19.06.1996 with immediate effect.
w.e.f.
We have heard Mr. P. S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate, and Mr. Manjit Singh, Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants and Mrs. Namita Sharma, learned companynsel for the respondent in detail.
They companytended that as the respondent sought unconditional voluntary retirement, he was number entitled to get pension in view of the decision taken by the Accountant General, Haryana, appellant No.4 herein and companyveyed vide companymunication dated 03.08.1996 to appellant No.
Being aggrieved against the impugned order dated 19.07.2002, the State of Haryana through Secretary to the Government, Haryana Transport Department Appellant No.1 , The Transport Commissioner, Haryana Appellant No.2 , The General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Faridabad Appellant No.3 and the Accountant General, Haryana, Appellant No.4 have filed this appeal by special leave.
13.06.1996 and revised pay scales, revised pension, revised gratuity, etc.
4619/99 filed by the respondent seeking retrial benefits, i.e. pension, gratuity, companymutation of pension w.e.f.
The Division Bench of the High Court in its order dated 31.08.1998 passed in CWP No.2890/07 found that the respondent in his application seeking voluntary retirement had pleaded inability to serve the Roadways due to illness and adverse family companydition and in the application, he did number incorporate any companydition that his request should be accepted only if he was found entitled to earn pension on the basis of the entire period of service.
The second writ petition No.
The document seeking voluntary retirement produced by the respondent before the Division Bench was held to be fabricated for which the respondent was penalized by the High Court by imposing companyt of Rs.5,000/ when his writ petition was dismissed.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6879 OF 2003 Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.07.2002 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CM No.10362/99 in CWP No.2890/97, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been directed to pay pension to Babu Singh by giving him benefit of Rule 6.16 2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1952 Vol.
The application was, however, allowed by the Division Bench vide Order dated 19.07.2002 and the appellants were directed to pay pension to the respondent within a period of three months.
