LPA No.900 of 2010 (O&M) -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.900 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:09.02.2011 Municipal Corporation Faridabad ...Appellant Versus Arun Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Vikas Malik, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Abha Rathor, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** M.M. KUMAR, J. A short issue raised in the instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Latters Patent is whether the writ petitioner-respondent is entitled to the benefit of Clause 3 of Rule 5.32-B of the Haryana Civil Service Rules Vol.2, which allow addition of extra service if it is less than 20 years for seeking voluntary retirement. The Municipal Corporation, Faridabad has challenged the judgment dated 19.02.2010 rendered by learned Single Judge while disposing of writ petition filed by the petitioner-respondent. It has come on record that the petitioner has qualifying service to his credit from 01.05.1990 to 31.01.2007. When the same is counted it comes to 16 years 8 months. The writ petitioner-respondent was granted voluntary retirement from 31.01.2007 vide order 04.12.2006 (P-3). The aforesaid order makes an interesting reading and LPA No.900 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ****** the same is set out hereunder: “Sh. Arun Kumar son of Shri Sodhan Singh, Helper Tube well had given representation dated 30.10.2006 in consideration of which he is allowed to proceed on voluntarily retirement from 30.01.2007 afternoon under Haryana Civil Service Rule Vol.2, Rule 5.32-B(1).” A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that the appellant themselves have held him entitled to the benefit of Rule 5.32-B, which has been duly quoted by the learned Single Judge. According to the aforesaid rule, the qualifying service as on the date of intended retirement of a Govt. employee could be increased by the period not exceeding 5 years. It is subject to further condition that total qualifying service rendered by him does not in any case exceed 33 years and it does not take an employee beyond the age of his supperannuation. It is unfortunate that after the appellant had itself granted the writ petitioner-respondent voluntary retirement by extending the benefits of Rule 5.32-B of the Haryana Civil Service Rule, Vol.2 that they are now contesting the claim made by the writ petitioner-respondent. During the course of arguments, Ms. Abha Rathor learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent offered that the writ petitioner-respondent is prepared to go back to service if the aforesaid benefit is not given to him. The matter was adjourned yesterday i.e. 08.02.2011 so as to enable the learned counsel for the appellant to seek instructions. When the matter was taken up again today i.e. 09.02.2011, the learned counsel pleaded that there is no possibility of taking him back in service. It is thus evident that the appellant LPA No.900 of 2010 (O&M) -3- ****** wants to enjoy good of both the worlds. Therefore, we do not find any ground warranting admission of the appeal as it is completely devoid of any merit. For the aforesaid reason, the appeal is dismissed. In view of the fact that the appeal has been dismissed on merit, we do not feel the necessity of passing any order on the application seeking condonation of delay of 123 days in filing the appeal. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE February 09, 2011 (T.P.S. MANN) rajan JUDGE