IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2890 of 2009 Date of Decision : March 10, 2011. Mohan Singh .....Petitioner versus Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.N.K.Verma, Advocate, for Mr.K.S.Rekhi, Advocate, for the respondent. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner served the respondent-University in different capacities including as a Superintendent for over 20 years before he was dismissed from service vide order dated 20.6.2007 pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings held on the allegations that he consumed liquor during the official duty. The petitioner challenged the dismissal order before this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.10409 of 2007 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.1.2008, which reads as follows:- “The petitioner is aggrieved by the order (Annexure P-10) vide which he was dismissed from service. C.W.P.No .2890 of 2009 2 During the course of arguments, when the case came up on the previous date, counsel for the respondents sought time to find out as to whether the order of dismissal from service passed against the petitioner can be converted to an order of compulsory retirement. Counsel for the respondent-University submits that the University has agreed to convert the order of dismissal from service into an order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no objection if he is compulsorily retired and the order of dismissal from service is revoked. In view of the respective statements made by the counsel for the parties, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction that the order (Annexure P-10) shall stand revoked and the petitioner is ordered to be compulsorily retired from service. The petitioner shall be entitled to his retiral dues in accordance with the rules.” 2] There can indeed be no ambiguity in the above reproduced order that the petitioner stood retired compulsorily from the respondent- University for all intents and purposes. The retiral benefits admissible to an employee who has been compulsorily retired from service, thus, cannot be denied to the petitioner. In this second petition, the only relief sought by the petitioner is to direct the respondent-University to grant him the pensionary benefits such as pension, arrears of pension, leave encashment, gratuity etc. 3] The reply-affidavit filed by the respondent-University gives C.W.P.No .2890 of 2009 3 an impression that the petitioner is not entitled to any such benefit on the premise that he was dismissed from service as a result of the departmental enquiry. As noticed above, the dismissal order has been substituted with the order of his compulsory retirement from service. 4] For the afore-stated reasons, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the respondent-University is directed to treat the petitioner as a compulsorily retired official and accordingly consider his claim for the payment of retiral dues in accordance with the Rules contained in the University Calendar. The due amount shall be released to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order, alongwith interest @ 6% per annum. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. March 10, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE