Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nPunjab-Haryana High Court\nSuresh Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Others on 27 August, 2020CWP-6922-2020                                -1-\n\n     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                    CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                                CWP-6922-2020\n                                Date of decision:-27.8.2020\n\n\nSuresh Kumar\n                                                                 ...Petitioner\n\n                   Versus\n\n\nState of Punjab and others\n                                                               ...Respondents\n\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN\n\n\nPresent:    Mr.Puneet Gupta, Advocate\n            for the petitioner.\n\n            Ms.Anju Arora, Addl. A.G., Punjab.\n\n\n                   ****\n\nH.S. MADAAN, J.\n\n            Case taken up through video conferencing.\n\n            Petitioner - Suresh Kumar has filed the instant Civil Writ\n\nPetition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India against\n\nrespondents - State of Punjab through Additional Chief Secretary,\n\nDepartment of Forest and Wildlife Preservation, Punjab, The Principal,\n\nChief Conservator of Forests and The Conservator of Forests, North\n\nCircle, Punjab craving for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or\n\ndirection to the respondents to grant 1st extension in service w.e.f.\n\n1.2.2020 to the petitioner, who is eligible for the same as per instructions\n\n\n\n\n                                    1 of 9\n                 ::: Downloaded on - 04-09-2020 05:07:48 :::\n CWP-6922-2020                                -2-\n\ndated 8.10.2012 (Annexure P-1) and had applied within time on the\n\nprescribed proforma and his case was duly recommended and certified.\n\n             Inter alia, in the writ petition, the petitioner has contended\n\nthat he was initially appointed as Clerk in the respondent - Department on\n\n12.8.1983 and was promoted as Senior Assistant in September, 2000 and\n\nthen as Superintendent in May, 2011 and thereafter as Administrative\n\nOfficer on 25.9.2017; his date of birth is 20.1.1962; the petitioner was to\n\nretire from service after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.1.2020.\n\nAccording to the petitioner, his work and conduct during his service\n\ncareer of 36 ½    years has been excellent and outstanding. Further it has\n\nbeen contended that, the Government of Punjab had issued a circular\n\ndated 8.10.2012 granting extension in service beyond the date of\n\nretirement of the Punjab Government employees of all groups i.e. Group\n\nA, Group B, Group C and Group D by one year requiring the employees\n\nto give their option, which was to be final and irrevocable; thereafter, the\n\nGovernment decided to grant the 2nd extension in service of 1 year from\n\n59 to 60 years vide circular dated 20.9.2013; as per the instructions issued\n\nby the respondents certain categories of persons would not be considered\n\nfor extension in service and furthermore those employees who are on\n\nextension of the 1st year or 2nd year in their service tenure and are covered\n\nunder the situation mentioned in the instructions dated 30.4.2015, their\n\ncases will be reviewed i.e. Persons against whom decision had been taken\n\nto issue charge sheet under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services\n\n(Punishment and Appeal) Rules or against whom charge sheet had been\n\nissued; persons upon whom major penalty stood imposed which was still\n\n\n\n                                    2 of 9\n                 ::: Downloaded on - 04-09-2020 05:07:48 :::\n CWP-6922-2020                                -3-\n\neffective till the date of superannuation; persons upon whom major\n\npenalty had been imposed in the last three years prior to the date of\n\nsuperannuation and persons against whom the competent authority had\n\ngranted the prosecution sanction in a criminal/vigilance case or where the\n\nCourt of competent jurisdiction had framed the charges; later on the\n\nFinance Department had issued clarification dated 7.5.2018 stating that if\n\nany case of corruption is being found against the officials/employees and\n\nit is found to be prima facie, even if the preliminary inquiry is pending in\n\nthat regard, then the extension in service would not be granted in terms of\n\ninstructions dated 8.10.2012 and 20.9.2013.\n\n             According to the petitioner, he had applied for extension in\n\nservice for the 1st year w.e.f. 1.2.2020 to 31.1.2021 vide his option\n\nsubmitting it to Circle Office, Hoshiarpur, who forwarded it to the office\n\nof respondent No.2 on 17.10.2019; respondent No.2 recommended and\n\nforwarded the case of the petitioner to respondent No.1 on 17.12.2019\n\nalong with the certificate that no departmental/vigilance case was pending\n\nagainst the petitioner; the petitioner continued to discharge his duties even\n\nafter 31.1.2020 till 3.3.2020; he was on leave on March 04 and 05, 2020\n\nand was not allowed to attend the duty on 6.3.2020; on 4.3.2020, the\n\npetitioner submitted a detailed request letter to respondent No.1\n\nrequesting for issuance of grant of 1st extension since he had applied in\n\ntime and his case stood duly recommended and there was nothing adverse\n\nagainst him but to not effect; the petitioner is yet to be paid his salary for\n\nthe period 1.2.2020 till 6.3.2020; on 6.3.2020 when the petitioner was not\n\nallowed to attend the office, he made inquiries and came to know that an\n\n\n\n                                    3 of 9\n                 ::: Downloaded on - 04-09-2020 05:07:48 :::\n CWP-6922-2020                                  -4-\n\norder dated 3.3.2020 had been issued by respondent No.1, retiring the\n\npetitioner without any reference to his option for the 1st extension in\n\nservice and without recording any reason in absolute violation of principle\n\nof natural justice; the order dated 3.3.2020 has not been communicated to\n\nthe petitioner till date.\n\n              According to the petitioner, amendment of Rule 3.26 of\n\nPunjab Civil Services Volume 1 Part I is not applicable to the case of the\n\npetitioner since the amendment had been made on 2.3.2020 and is\n\neffective from that date. The case of the petitioner is prior thereto and\n\nextension in service cannot be denied to him on that ground. Both the\n\namendment dated 2.3.2020 and instructions dated 2.3.2020 permit that\n\nany person who is availing or opting for the 1st extension in service, which\n\nis "scheduled to start any time till the 1st day of September, 2020 shall,\n\nupon opting for such extension, retire on the 30th day of September,\n\n2020". According to the petitioner he has been retired retrospectively,\n\nwhich is not permissible under the law.\n\n              Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ\n\npetition.\n\n              On notice the respondents appeared and filed written reply\n\nmaking preliminary submissions contending that Rule 3.26 has since been\n\namended. The amended Rule being as under:\n\n       "3.26 (a) Except as otherwise provided in this rule, the date of\n       retirement of a Government employee other than a Group-D\n       Government employee shall be the date on which he attains the age\n       of 58 years and the date of retirement of a Group-D Government\n       employee shall be the date on which he attains the age of 60 years:\n\n                                      4 of 9\n                   ::: Downloaded on - 04-09-2020 05:07:48 :::\n CWP-6922-2020                                    -5-\n\n               Provided that if the State Government is of the opinion that it\n      is necessary or expedient in public interest so to do, the service of a\n      Government employee or a class of Government employees, may be\n      extended beyond the date of retirement for a period not exceeding\n      two years, after getting an option from the concerned Government\n      employee or the Government employees, as the case may be.\n               Provided further that a Government employee must not be\n      retained in service after the period of service extended under this\n      clause, except in exceptional circumstances with the previous\n      sanction of the competent authority in public interest for reason to\n      be recorded in writing."\n\n               Thus, the Rule makes it clear that extension in service is\n\nprerogative of the State Government and this relief cannot be claimed as a\n\nright by an employee. Under the circumstances, the petitioner had no right\n\nto continue on extension because after date of superannuation extension in\n\nservice   is    to     be   granted    purely    at    the   discretion   of   the\n\nemployer/Government. In support of that contention, judgment titled State\n\nof Assam and another etc. Versus Sasanta Kumar Dass etc. reported as\n\nAIR 1973 SC 1252 and a judgment by Division Bench of this Court titled\n\nLal Chand Goyal Versus Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board\n\nand others, CWP No.11994 of 2013 decided on 10.2.2014 have been\n\nreferred to.\n               It is further contended that though the petitioner had applied\n\nfor extension on 11.10.2019 and his request was processed and was under\n\nconsideration of the Government ,when he had filed the writ petition. It is\n\ncontended that date of birth of the petitioner happened to be 20.1.1962, as\n\nsuch he was to be retired from service after attaining the age of\n\n\n\n                                        5 of 9\n                     ::: Downloaded on - 04-09-2020 05:07:48 :::\n CWP-6922-2020                                -6-\n\nsuperannuation on 31.1.2020 regarding which the petitioner was well\n\naware, being Administrative Officer having full control over the office,\n\nhowever, he did not bring this fact to the notice of the higher authority and\n\ncontinued to discharge his duty on his post, even after 31.1.2020 till\n\n3.3.2020 without getting any permission from the competent authority.\n\nThe competent authority has disallowed his attendance on 2nd March and\n\n3rd March, 2020, when this fact came to the notice of the department, the\n\npetitioner was immediately retired from service vide order dated 3.3.2020\n\nw.e.f. 31.1.2020. Such act and conduct of the petitioner debars him from\n\nseeking extension. The Punjab Government in order to generate\n\nemployment for the youth of the State vide its decision dated 2.3.2020 had\n\nscrapped the policy of granting extension in service to its employees after\n\nretirement approving the proposal to reduce the retirement age of\n\ngovernment employees from 60 to 58. On merits, the material assertions\n\nin the writ petition have been controverted, in the end praying for\n\ndismissal of the writ petition.\n\n             I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going\n\nthrough the record.\n\n             First of all coming to the conduct of the petitioner. In para\n\nNo.2 of the petition, the petitioner has given his date of birth as 20.1.1962\n\nsubmitting that he was to retire from service after attaining the age of\n\nsuperannuation on 31.1.2020. If that was so, then how and for what reason\n\nhe continued on that post till 3.3.2020. It is for him to explain since there\n\nis no order by the Government, granting him extension in service. The\n\npetitioner could not have continued in service for such a time in such a\n\n\n\n                                    6 of 9\n                 ::: Downloaded on - 04-09-2020 05:07:48 :::\n CWP-6922-2020                                -7-\n\nmanner. The reason given by the respondents in the written reply that the\n\npetitioner was looking after the administrative matters in the office and he\n\nbeing a responsible officer should have demitted office on 31.1.2020 but\n\nhe did not do so and rather continued working up to 3.3.2020. There is a\n\nlapse on the part of other officers (officials) of the department also but for\n\nthat reason the petitioner cannot get any advantage by default. The period\n\nof his service from 1.2.2020 up to 3.3.2020 has admittedly not been\n\nregularized so far. Simply for the reason that he continued attending office\n\nup to 3.3.2020 does not bestow any valuable right upon him to ask for\n\nsalary and other consequential benefits during that period. He was rightly\n\nretired from service w.e.f. 31.1.2020 and no fault can be found with the\n\norder passed in that regard. The impugned order retiring the petitioner\n\nfrom service w.e.f. 31.1.2020 narrates the true factual position and it\n\ncannot be said that the petitioner has been retired from service\n\nretrospectively. Attending office and working as Administrative Officer\n\nafter 31.1.2020 till 3.3.2020 was totally unauthorized, wrong, illegal and\n\nunjustified. He cannot claim any benefit for such services rendered.\n\n             Such type of employee is certainly not entitled to extension in\n\nservice. Of course, it is for the Government to see whether extension in\n\nservice is to be granted to an employee or not and certainly an employee\n\ncannot insist that he be granted extension in service, though the\n\nGovernment does not desire to grant extension to such an employee. Of\n\ncourse, grant of extension to employees in an arbitrary manner adopting\n\npick and choose policy cannot be approved of i.e. Government cannot\n\ngrant extension to some employees or refuse the same to others without\n\n\n\n                                    7 of 9\n                 ::: Downloaded on - 04-09-2020 05:07:48 :::\n CWP-6922-2020                                 -8-\n\nany justifiable reason but then discretion to do so always rest with the\n\nGovernment and it cannot be taken away.\n\n            As regards application of the petitioner seeking extension, the\n\nsame was still under process and final order in that regard had not been\n\npassed, when the petitioner without waiting for final order to be passed on\n\nhis application and make the request to the concerned authorities in that\n\nregard opted to seek judicial intervention by way of filing the present writ\n\npetition. The policy granting extension to the employees has since been\n\nscrapped by the Punjab Government statedly for providing more job\n\navenues to the unemployed youth in the State. Rule 3.26 of Punjab Civil\n\nServices has since been amended. The Government in view of the conduct\n\nof the petitioner in omitting to demit the office on 31.1.2020 and\n\nthereafter attending office and marking his presence in an unauthorized\n\nmanner has not accepted the request of the petitioner for grant of\n\nextension. No fault can be found with action of the Government in doing\n\nso. Rather if the petitioner is granted extension in service as claimed by\n\nhim that would amount to putting pressure on his wrong and illegal acts\n\ndiscussed earlier in the judgment.\n\n            As regards the judgments passed by Division Bench of this\n\nCourt in CWP No.11994 of 2013 in case titled Lal Chand Goyal Versus\n\nPunjab State Agricultural Marketing Board and others and other\n\nconnected petitions and judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this\n\nCourt in CWP No.25972 of 2015 in case titled Dr.Jagjivan Singh Versus\n\nState of Punjab and others,       referred to by learned counsel for the\n\npetitioner, those do not come to rescue of the present case due to different\n\n\n\n                                     8 of 9\n                 ::: Downloaded on - 04-09-2020 05:07:48 :::\n CWP-6922-2020                                -9-\n\nfacts and circumstances and the context in which such observations have\n\nbeen made.\n\n             Finding no merit in the civil writ petition, the same stands\n\ndismissed.\n\n\n27.8.2020                                          (H.S.MADAAN)\nBrij                                                   JUDGE\n\nWhether reasoned/speaking :             Yes/No\n\nWhether reportable              :       Yes/No\n\n\n\n\n                                    9 of 9\n                 ::: Downloaded on - 04-09-2020 05:07:48 :::