CWP No.4695 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4695 of 2010 Date of Decision:- March 17, 2010 Union of India and others ...Petitioners VERSUS The Central Administrative Tribunal and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.G.K.S.Taank, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** M.M.KUMAR, J. The Union of India has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging order dated 30.11.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity the Tribunal) vide which O.A. No.624-JK-2008 filed by the Ex- Sweeper-respondent No.2, was disposed of with the direction to the department to consider the case of the applicant-respondent No.2 for grant of pension and other retiral benefits under the Rules on proportionate basis. It is admitted position on the record that the Ex-Sweeper- respondent No.2 admittedly has rendered over 18 years of service and on 1.11.1975 (FN), he tendered his resignation which was duly accepted and no information was intimated to him that he would likely to forfeit his past service in pursuance of newly enacted Rule i.e. Central Civil Services CWP No.4695 of 2010 -2- (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for brevity the 1972 Rules). Having rendered over 18 years of service, he approached the Tribunal with the prayer for considering his past service as qualifying service for the purposes of grant of pension and other retiral benefits. The Tribunal has allowed the application filed by the Ex-Sweeper-respondent No.2. On merits, the Tribunal has taken the view that in the year 1957, when the petitioner joined the services, there was no Rule equivalent to Rule 26 of the 1972 Rules, providing for forfeiture of qualifying service in the manner it has been pleaded by the petitioner. The enactment of Rule 26 in the year 1972, could not be regarded as retrospective, especially when it acts to the extreme prejudice of the Ex-Sweeper-respondent No.2. Keeping in view that aspect of the matter, the Tribunal has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Mohinder Pal Puri Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2002 (2) RSJ, 181. The aforesaid judgment has emerged from the Punjab Civil Services Rules which are pari-materia to the 1972 Rules. The Tribunal has placed reliance on another judgment of this Court rendered in case of State of Haryana Vs. Madan Lal Ahlawat, 2003 (2) RSJ, 315, granting retiral benefits in respect of an employee, who had rendered more than 10 years of service. The objection with regard to the limitation raised by the petitioner has also been rejected by the Tribunal by citing the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of S.R.Bhanrale Vs. Union of India and others AIR 1997 SC 27, by holding that payment of pensionary benefits is continuous one and a cause of action arises every months. Accordingly, the Tribunal has not granted any interest and has moulded the relief on account of grant of pensionary benefits. The Tribunal has also mentioned in para 11 a case of one Devi Chand, a colleague of the applicant, who had rendered 10 years of service and was granted retiral benefits, when he made a representation. CWP No.4695 of 2010 -3- After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and keeping in view the findings recorded by the Tribunal, we are of the considered view that Rule 26 of the 1972 Rules, cannot be applied retrospectively to the prejudice of the petitioner. No Rule or instructions equivalent to Rule 26 of the 1972 Rules, have been cited by the counsel for the petitioner to show that any such service conditions existed at the time when the petitioner joined service in 1957 or even within the reasonable time thereafter. Ex-Sweeper-respondent No.2 has legitimate expectation for grant of retiral benefits after rendering 18 years of service. Even otherwise, we find it extremely inequitable to deny the retiral benefits to an employee, who has rendered 18 years of service, which constitute best part of his life. Therefore, we find no merit in the petition warranting its admission. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE March 17, 2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) Vt JUDGE