IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT C HANDIGARH L.P.A.No.990 of 1999 (O&M) Date of decision:1.7.2009 Punjab State Electricity Board and another ......Appellants Vs. Puran Chander ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: None **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.(Oral) 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of learned Single Judge allowing writ petition of the respondent and directing payment of pension, gratuity and other post retiral benefits that may be admissible to him under the relevant rules. 2. Case of the respondent is that he was allowed to retire on his own request but retiral benefits were not given. The claim was contested on the ground that the respondent was wrongly allowed to retire before completion of qualifying service. 3. Learned Single Judge held that it is too late to say that the retirement was wrongly allowed and on that ground the post retiral benefits could not be given. It was noticed that the appellants were not willing to take the respondent back in service. 4. While admitting the appeal, the Division Bench observed in its L.P.A. No. 990 of 1999 [2] order dated 6.12.1999 that the employee had worked for 12 years, 6 months and 19 days while remaining service rendered by him was on work charge basis. The stand of the appellants was that service rendered as work- charge had to be excluded for calculating the qualifying service. It was further observed that the appellants were not willing to take the contesting respondent back in service even though their plea was that request for retirement was wrongly accepted. If request for retirement before completion of 25 years of service was wrongly accepted, the appellants should have informed the writ petitioner. In view thereof, there was no ground to stay the order directing payment of post retiral benefits. 5. We have perused the record. 6. Having regard to the finding of the learned Single Judge, that the writ petitioner was allowed to retire and was never informed that retirement was not permissible and he could join service again which finding has been reiterated in interim order passed by Division Bench on 6.12.1999. The respondent must have received the retiral benefits. Even otherwise, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) July 01, 2009 JUDGE raghav Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter ........Yes/No