IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.2247 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.3.2010 Kuldip Singh ----- Petitioner Vs. The State of Punjab -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr.D.V.Sharma, Sr.Advocate with Ms. Shivani Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab for the State. --- Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of instructions Annexure P.3 dated 27.1.2010 granting extension in service for one year to employees whose retirement age fell from 22.1.2010 to 31.12.2010. 2. Case of the petitioner is that even though, under the service rules applicable to category of the petitioner, age of retirement was 58 years and after the said age, no employee could be retained in service “except in exceptional circumstances with the sanction of competent authority on public grounds, which must be recorded in writing”, instructions P.3 have been issued which CWP No.2247 of 2010 (O&M) are in conflict with the rules. On account of the said instructions, promotion chances of the petitioner have been affected as the vacancy which would have become available, has remained occupied. 3. Reply has been filed on behalf of the State justifying the impugned order as being consistent with Rule 3.26 (a) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I Part I. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The question for consideration is whether impugned instructions Annexure P.3 are consistent with Rule 3.26 (a). The said rule and instructions are reproduced below:- Rule “3.26(a) Except as otherwise provided in other clauses of this rule, the date of retirement of a Government employee other than a Class IV Government employee, is the date on which he attains the age of 58 years. He must not be retained in service after the age of retirement, except in exceptional circumstances with the sanction of competent authority on public grounds, which must be recorded in writing…..” Instructions: “…..After considering the matter carefully it has been decided that the extension of One year tenure may be granted to officers/officials retiring between the period from 22.1.2010 to 31.12.2010 after obtaining the option from them on following term 2 CWP No.2247 of 2010 (O&M) and conditions. This benefit will not be granted to those officers/officials whose retirement age is already above 58 years of age….” 6. A perusal of the instructions shows that no exceptional circumstances are mentioned and instructions instead of being exceptional are general and operate to modify or annual the rule. The instructions cannot be allowed to be issued contrary to a rule. It is not disputed that the rule is a statutory rule and is saved under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. 7. In view of above un-disputed position, impugned instructions, Annexure P.3 cannot be sustained and are quashed. We, however, make it clear that this order will operate prospectively and will not affect the benefits already given under the said instructions. It is also made clear that the State will be at liberty to pass fresh order in accordance with law. 8. The petition is disposed of. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge March 29, 2010 (Alok Singh) ‘gs’ Judge 3