CWP No. 14662 of 1999(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 14662 of 1999(O&M) Date of decision : July 12 , 2010 Tejinder Pal Singh Mago ...... Petitioner v. The State of Punjab ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr.R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr.Kohal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Gill, DAG, Punjab. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18.8.97 whereby it has been decided to retire the petitioner at the age of 55 years and not to retain him in service till the age of 58 years. As per this order there were three adverse Annual Confidential Reports against the petitioner for the year 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95. The additional ground taken is that there were two inquiries pending against him out of which one was relating to financial irregularity. Learned Senior Advocate has argued that one of the inquiries was dropped and in the other inquiry punishment of censure was imposed. Further more, the adverse remarks recorded in the reports mentioned above were expunged. Consequently learned Senior CWP No. 14662 of 1999(O&M) 2 Advocate has argued that the impugned order should be set aside. He has relied upon State of Gujarat and another v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah reported as JT 1998(8) SC 326 and State of Gujarat v.Umedbhai M.Patel reported as JT 2001(3) SC 223. Learned DAG, however, states that the aforesaid decision was taken on the basis of the entire service record of the petitioner. However, apart from the assertions made in the impugned order no other adverse report has been relied upon. In the circumstances it has to be held that the impugned order is vitiated. Even the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the same ground. The question which now remains is as to what relief the petitioner is entitled to. Learned Senior Advocate has argued that the order be set aside and the petitioner be held entitled to all the consequential benefits including salary for the period he was kept out of service. In my opinion, even if this order is set aside the petitioner would not be held entitled to the salary for the period for which he was not kept in service. He would, however, be entitled to other consequential benefits including pension and fixation of superannuation benefits. This writ petition is allowed in the above terms. Respondent is directed to workout the benefits to be payable to the petitioner from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order failing which the petitioner would be entitled to 8% interest on the amount due from the date when it was due till the date of actual payment. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 12, 2010. JUDGE sunita