IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7717 of 2009 Date of Decision: October 07, 2009 Amrik Singh Bedi .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Saurabh Arora and Mr. Daman Dhir, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that Annexure P-8 is not the correct translation and therefore, correct translated copy of the said document be taken on record. Ordered accordingly. This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 19.5.2009 (Annexure P-8). CWP No.7717 of 2009 [2] Perusal of Order, Annexure P-8, indicates that application of the petitioner for withdrawal of notice for premature retirement has been rejected. Relevant facts for consideration are that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk on 7.12.1981 in the office of District Election Officer –cum- Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana. Since the petitioner belongs to Kapurthala, he sought his transfer from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana to District Kapurthala which was allowed in the year 2002 on conditions as per the Rules. The petitioner moved an application (Annexure P-1) for premature retirement on 28.11.2008, the contents whereof read as under:- “It is requested that I am working as Clerk in your office. I joined this service on 7.11.1981 and from that time I am in service till now. I have completed about 27 years service and due to my domestic circumstances, I do not want to continue my service and I want to retire w.e.f. 30.4.2009 as I want to take premature retirement. In this regard, I want to request that all the retirement benefits be given to me as I am found eligible. We kind enough and my this application be treated as a notice. I shall be highly thankful to you.” The exact reference of the impugned order needs to be given. The impugned order reads as under:- “Sh. Amrik Singh Bedi, Sr. Clerk O/o SDM Phagwara had sought his premature retirement on 28.11.2008 after giving three months notice after completion of his 27 years of service. As per Government instructions, the retirement be given before 30.4.2009. This notice along with the letter of Sub Divisional Magistrate Phagwara No.457/BC dated 15.12.2008 was received. During this period, the Sr. Clerk was served a charge sheet for going CWP No.7717 of 2009 [3] abroad without sanction of his leave vide this office letter No.1561/EA dated 28.11.2008 due to which action on his pre-mature retirement notice was kept pending. The decision on this show cause notice was taken on 16.3.2009 that the employee be warned and in future he should not go without sanctioning of the leave. His leave from 26.6.2008 to 26.7.2008 is sanctioned. That the notice given by the employee on 28.11.2008 for his pre-mature retirement as per Govt. Instructions that period is completed on 28.2.2009 and the applicant had moved his application to withdraw the notice 24.3.2009, which was received from the Sub Divisional Magistrate Phagwara vide his letter no.29/BC dated 27.3.2009. This notice had been acted upon there and then. If the applicant had moved that application before the expiry of the period of notice. Therefore, the notice given by Sh. Amrik Singh Bedi, Sr. Clerk dated 28.11.2008 is hereby accepted and this employee is relieved from service w.e.f. 14.5.2009 as premature retire. And it is also ordered that he is ordered to submit his pension papers to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Phagwara immediately.” Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that impugned order has been passed on the premise that the petitioner had given three months’ notice for premature retirement on 28.11.2008. The period was completed on 28.2.2009. The application for withdrawal of notice was given on 24.3.2009 (Annexure P-3) which is subsequent to the date on which premature retirement became effective. It has been pointed out that the basis for rejecting application of the petitioner is against facts in so much as a perusal of the notice for premature retirement indicates that the petitioner wanted the notice of premature retirement to be effective from 30.4.2009. The impugned order has been passed on the basis of a presumed fact and hence cannot be justified and is liable to be CWP No.7717 of 2009 [4] quashed. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to justify passing of the impugned order in the face of the contents of notice given for premature retirement. I have heard the learned counsel and have gone through the record. The relevant rule viz. Rule 3(2) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 reads as under:- “3(2) Any Government employee may, after giving at least three months’ previous notice in writing to the appropriate authority retire from service on the date on which he completes twenty-five years of qualifying service or attains fifty years of age or on any date thereafter to be specified in the notice : Provided that no employee under suspension shall retire from service except with the specified approval of the appropriate authority.” The petitioner was required to give at least three months’ previous notice in writing. The petitioner, in compliance with the provision, gave more than three months notice on 28.11.2008 for retirement w.e.f. 30.4.2009. Admittedly, before the said date, the petitioner withdrew the notice on 24.3.2009. No legal infirmity can be traced in the action of the petitioner. Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it transpires that the petitioner was required to give “atleast three months’ previous notice in writing”. It clearly means that the petitioner could give notice CWP No.7717 of 2009 [5] of three months or more. In the case in hand, the petitioner gave notice on 28.11.2008 for premature retirement to become effective on 30.4.2009 i.e. more than three months. Before the premature retirement could become effective on 30.4.2009, however, vide Annexure P-3, on 24.3.2009 the petitioner made a request for withdrawal of notice. The petitioner therefore was still in service when notice for premature retirement was withdrawn. The impugned order was passed on the presumed ground that notice period was completed on 28.2.2009. This is, however, against the record. The action of the respondents in passing the impugned order is clearly unreasonable in so much as the order has been passed dehors the facts. The petitioner having withdrawn the notice for premature retirement before it became effective, the respondents were required to accept the request and allow withdrawal of notice for premature retirement. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Order Annexure P-8 is hereby quashed. It is made clear that the petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits. (AJAI LAMBA) October 07, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?