IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P.(T) No. 2841 of 2008. Reserved on: 04.03.2010. Decided on: 08.04.2010. _________________________________________________________ Mohan Lal. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents No. 1 and 2. : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. For respondent No. 3 : Nemo. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Petitioner was appointed as Peon in Revenue Department. He submitted an application, seeking voluntary retirement on 22.12.1976 (Annexure A-1). He was directed to complete the pension papers on any working day as per communication dated 17th January, 1977 (Annexure A-2). Petitioner submitted various representations to the authorities for considering his case for pension. His case was ultimately rejected by the competent authority on 31.07.1989 (Annexure A-12). Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that her client was entitled to 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.Yes. get pension on the basis of Annexure A-2, dated 17th January, 1977. She has further contended that once her client has been permitted to retire prematurely on the basis of Annexures A-1, dated 22.12.1976 and A-2, dated 17th January, 1977, thereafter, no departmental proceedings could be initiated against him. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the petitioner has willfully absented from 01.05.1972 and thereafter, the departmental proceedings were initiated against him. He was removed from service on 12.05.1978. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. Petitioner has submitted an application on 22.12.1976, seeking pre-mature retirement. He was directed to supply the necessary documents as per communication dated 17th January, 1977 (Annexure A-2). There is nothing on record to come to a definite conclusion that the petitioner has ever supplied the documents. Petitioner has proceeded on leave w.e.f. 11.12.1971 to 30.04.1972. Thereafter, he absented himself w.e.f. 1.5.1972. He was served with a charge-sheet on 5.5.1977. He filed reply to the same on 14.5.1977. Inquiry Officer was appointed on 30.07.1977. Petitioner was served with a show cause notice on 8th March, 1978 vide Annexure A-3. Thereafter, the petitioner was removed from service on 12.5.1978. Neither the petitioner nor the respondents have placed on record copy of the order of removal dated 12.5.1978. It is also borne out from Annexure A-3, dated 8th March, 1978 that the petitioner has participated during the course of inquiry. Petitioner though has submitted the application dated 22.12.1976, seeking pre-mature retirement and was called upon to supply the necessary documents on 17th January, 1977, but there is no material placed on record by the parties that petitioner was prematurely retired. It is apparent from the reply that petitioner has not supplied the documents and the master servant relationship continued. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner have culminated in issuance of show cause notice dated 8th March, 1978, pursuant to which, petitioner stood removed on 12.5.1978. Since the petitioner was removed from service, he was not entitled to pension. Petitioner was informed on 31.7.1989 that as per the provisions laid down in CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, he was not entitled to pension. There is no illegality in the issuance of letter dated 31.07.1989 (Annexure A-12). There is also inordinate delay in pursuing the case by the petitioner. This delay has not been explained by the petitioner. Petitioner has not challenged his removal order dated 12.5.1978. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge April 08, 2010. (bhupender)