IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 16.10.2008 1. CWP No. 4911 of 1990 Ex-Head Constable Bal Kishan ...... Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents 2. CWP No. 5228 of 1991 Sh.Amarjit Singh, Ex-ASI ..... Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari 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? Present: Mr.Manu Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Anil Sharma, Sr. DAG, Punjab for the respondents. **** Ajay Tewari, J. The short ground raised in both these petitions is that the petitioners were compulsorily retired and that earlier to such compulsory retirement infliction of punishment of forfeiture of service had been imposed upon them. The case set up in both the petitions is that after excluding the CWP No. 4911 of 1990 -2- period of forfeiture of service the petitioners did not complete 25 years of service and, since they had not attained the age of 50 years they could not be compulsorily retired. Learned counsel are agreed that the matter is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chamba Singh v. State of Punjab and others reported as AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2455 wherein it has been held as follows:- “The effect, therefore, of the punishment of forfeiture of two years for the purpose of increments is that there is deferment of increment or increments over the forfeited period or there is reduction in pay. It does not have any impact on the length of service qualifying for pension which is the qualifying service to be taken into account for the purpose of compulsory retirement. It is contended by the appellant that since sub rule (3) of Rule 16.5 provides that on the expiry of the period fixed under sub-rule (1) or (2) of Rule 16.5, reinstatement is subject to good conduct and it is open to the department to pass a separate order not to reinstate an officer, there is a break in the service of the officer when an order is passed under sub-rule (1) or (2). However, reinstatement in the context of Rule 16.5 can refer only to the resumption of service for the purpose of grant of increments. Forfeiture of service for the grant of increments does not result in termination of employment. Thus, sub-rule (1) provides for withholding of increments of a police officer on a time-scale as a punishment. There is no reference in this sub-rule to forfeiture of service. Yet sub-rule (3) applies to an order under sub-rule (1) as much as to an order under sub-rule (2). Under sub-rule (2) the forfeiture is expressly of approved service for the purpose of increments. Such forfeiture may be temporary or permanent. This Rule has no bearing on qualifying service for compulsory/premature retirement. CWP No. 4911 of 1990 -3- The appellant continued in service throughout this period. His right to receive increments alone was affected. If the period of “forfeited” service under Rule 16.5(2) is to be deducted from qualifying service for compulsory retirement, it would have the paradoxical result of granting longer service to such an employee for compulsory retirement. He would have to be allowed to work for additional years to make up the 'forfeited' years, before he can be compulsorily retired. This is not the intention of Rule 16.5. The appellant placed reliance upon a decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Shri Bhagat Ram v. Inspector General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, (1979) 3 Serv LR 256: (1979 Lab IC NOC 129). The judgment has proceeded on the assumption that forfeiture of service for the purpose of increment is equivalent to a reduction in the period of qualifying service. For reasons which we have already set out, this is not a correct interpretation of the punishment of forfeiture of service for the purpose of increments.” In this view of the matter it is clear that the service which was forfeited would not only be counted for the purpose of computing 25 years of service it would also be counted for pension. As a result both the petitions are dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE October 16, 2008 sunita