CWP No. 20310 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 20310 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 05-05-2011 Virender Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kohal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana MAHESH GROVER, J The facts of the case reveal that the earlier order of dismissal was set aside by this Court by making following observations:- “ In view of the above circumstances and for the above reasons, we set aside the impugned order of punishment dated 27.8.2003 (Annexure P-2) the order dated 22.6.2004 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Appellate Authority and the order dated 20.8.2005 passed by the Revisional Authority and direct the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the question of punishment to be awarded to the petitioner, keeping in view service rendered by him i.e 11 years 9 months and his right to pension and take into consideration these factors and thereafter a fresh order of punishment be passed. Let fresh order be passed within a period of three months of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, the order of reistatement shall remain in abeyance till fresh consideration is accorded CWP No. 20310 of 2010 (O&M) 2 and will depend upon the outcome of the fresh consideration.” As such the impact of the earlier order of dismissal stood erased. The respondents were thus directed to pass fresh order within a period of three months of the receipt of the certified copy of the order. By virtue of Annexure P-5 the case of the petitioner once again has been negated by saying that the petitioner be deemed to be dismissed from service w.e.f. 9.4.92 and that he shall not be paid any salary for the absence period on the basis of principle of no work no pay. Petitioner's grievance is that in the preceding paragraphs of the impugned order, the claim for pension has also been denied on the ground that he has not completed 20 years of service. This has been the sole grievance of the petitioner agitated before this Court. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that order dated 8.9.2010 is an appealable order and ordinarily an appeal ought to have been filed. The petition is thus disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against order dated 8.9.2010 before the competent authority who will evaluate the law laid down by this Court regarding the grant of pension if a person has completed 10 years of service. In the eventuality of an appeal being filed by the petitioner, the same shall be disposed of on merits without holding the factor of delay against him and in the light of the judgments of this Court rendered qua affordability of pension to a dismissed employee who has put in more than 10 years of service. The petitioner shall file an appeal within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and in such an eventuality, the same shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. May 5 , 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge