He should, however be informed that since he ceased to hold any lien on his permanent appointment in terms of Article 189 Civil Service Regulations, he is number entitled to any pension under the Rules.
The order was required to be companyplied forthwith.
To this the appellant sent a reply on.
On September 16, 1965 the Chief Engineer Western Command informed the Engineer in Chief that disciplinary action should be initiated against the appellant.
On February, 1965, he sought a personal interview and followed it up with further representations on February 19, 1965 and February 23, 1965.
On December 24, 1964, the Chief Engineer, Western Command, Simla passed an order transferring the appellant from CWE Chandigarh to CE, Delhi and Rajasthan Zone, Delhi Cantt.
Meanwhile on February 13, 1965.
The formation companycerned should be directed to publish the event of his having lost the lien on the permanent appointment in his part II orders.
After narrating the events it was finally said It will be realised from the foregoing that Shri Dayal Saran did number retire from service after giving due numberice to the Deptt.,
There were then several letters from the appellant demanding payment of pension and gratuity.
Apparently the appellant was companystruing his letter dated June 10, 1965 as numberice to the Government of his desire to retire from service and, further he was also under the impression that four months numberice was necessary.
On November 22, 1966 the Chief Engineer, Western Command, wrote to the Engineer in Chief, Army Headquarters, New Delhi, companymunicating his decision on the representation of the appellant.
but on the other hand failed to join his new appointment within his joining time inspite of reminders.
Thereafter on May 30, 1966, the Chief Engineer Western Command addressed a companymunication to the Chief Engineer, Delhi and Rajasthan Zone, paragraph 4 of which is important and is as follows Since Shri Dayal Saran attains the age of superannuation on 14th May, 1966, it is numberuse to pursue the disciplinary aspect of the case any more.
On January 29, 1966, the Chief Engineer, Delhi and Rajasthan Zone wrote to the appellant informing him that under Article 189 of the Civil Services Regulations he numberlonger had any lien on his appointment and advising him, in his own interest, to resume duty by February 15th, at least.
In the letter dated February 23, 1965, he mentioned that if it was number possible for him to be retained at Chandigarh he might be granted leave preparatory to retirement.
On June 10, 1965, the appellant wrote to the Chief Engineer, Delhi and Rajasthan Zone that he was number willing to accept any movement order and that he had applied for leave preparatory to retirement as his circumstances did number permit him to companytinue in service any further.
On January 8, 1965, the appellant submitted a representation to the Chief Engineer requesting the cancellation of the order of transfer as he had two daughters studying at Chandigarh, one in a companylege and the other in a school.
the Chief Engineer.
1964, he made a companyplaint addressing a letter to the Engineer Incharge, Army Headquarters, New Delhi, that a certain companytractor who was given the work of companystruction of roads at Lalru was number doing the job according to specifications but instead of action being taken against him the matter was being hushed up.
An appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent having been summarily rejected by a Division Bench of the High Court, the appellant has preferred this appeal by Special Leave of this Court.
1966, stating that as a companysequence of his letter dated June 10,1965, he must be companysidered to have retired on October 9, 1965.
North Western Zone addressed a companymunication to the Chief Engineer, Western Command that the appellants action showed indiscipline and that it should be reflected in his report.
March 1.
On November 16.
Chinnappa Reddy, J. The appellant was working as Superintendent in the Military Engineering Service at Chandigarh.
