CWP No. 9739 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 9739 of 2006 Date of Decision: March 06, 2009 Sat Pal ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Senior DAG, Haryana. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. The petitioner had originally filed this petition for release of retiral benefits. The same have been paid during the pendency of the petition, the only dispute now raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the period of suspension of the petitioner has not been regularised and subsistence allowance and other service benefits have not been released to the petitioner for the said period thus resulting in prejudice to him. In reply it was mentioned that the petitioner was chargesheeted for being habitual absentee. He admitted the charges and was reinstated vide order dated 28.06.2004. In less than six months of his reinstatement he moved an CWP No. 9739 of 2006 2 application dated 30.11.2004 for seeking voluntary retirement which was allowed vide order dated 27.12.2004. Thereafter by order dated 09.06.2005 the competent authority passed an order of punishing him by award of censure and further directed that the period of his absence be treated as leave of the kind due. Subsequently the petitioner moved an application for sanction of leave of 856 days including leave without pay for 618 days. Thus, the position which has emerged is that the petitioner wants to get the premium of that period of service during which he remained unauthorisedly absent and, rather was awarded punishment for that infraction. In my opinion the petitioner would not be entitled to thus benefit from his own wrong. The next prayer of the petitioner is for interest regarding the delay in release of his retiral benefits. The facts mentioned above show that this was not a case of normal superannuation but a case where a Government employee vanished from his job for a period of almost 2 ½ years; surfaced; and then within six months, during pendency of the inquiry into that very absence, sought for and was granted voluntary retirement. In the circumstances any delay which may have occurred in the release of his retiral benefits cannot be held to be actionable so as to entitle him to interest. Consequently this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE March 06, 2009 sunita