C.W.P. No.14002 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.14002 of 2000 Date of Decision:02.09.2009 D.R. Singhal .....Petitioner Versus Executive Officer, Cantonment Board and another ...Respondents Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate for respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The award rejecting the reference sought by the workman at the Cantonment Board, Ambala is the subject of this writ petition. 2. The petitioner, who had joined the service in the Cantonment Board on 11.08.1943 as 'Relieve Clerk' was later made as a Typist and promoted as Octroi Inspector and still later he was confirmed in the post as an Accountant. By the proceedings of the Executive Officer, Cantonment Board he had been discharged from service on 21.05.1974 taking recourse to Rule 8(1)(c) of Cantonment Fund Servant Rules, 1937 which provided for compulsory retirement if a workman had completed 30 years of qualifying service or had completed 55 years of age. The order of discharge was challenged initially before this Court but it was dismissed in limine. The C.W.P. No.14002 of 2000 -2- workman had given a representation to the Cantonment Board for reconsideration of the decision upon which by a resolution dated 27.11.1979, the Cantonment Board notionally reinstated him in service and terminated him on his completion of 55 years and provided to him also some benefits such as Earned Leave for a period of his entitlement, Half Pay from 04.11.1974 to 24.06.1976 and Extraordinary Leave from 26.06.1976 to 06.04.1977. This resolution was originally sanctioned by the Cantonment Board but later, by letter dated 29.08.1980 it appears that GOC-in-C, Western Command held these proceedings of notional reinstatement and grant of allowances to be bad. 3. The workman sought to contend that the decision of compulsory retirement was in the nature of punishment for alleged cutting of trees and for embezzlements. The Labour Court, however, found that although some enquiry had been initiated on charges but ultimately the decision to compulsorily retire him was taken only on the basis of the relevant rules which provided for discharge under the rules referred to above on completion of 30 years of service or on the completion of 55 years of age whichever was earlier. The Labour Court found that the ultimate order of discharge was not in the nature of punishment and it was as per rules. The order rejecting the reference was on a proper consideration of all relevant material and I find no error in the award of the Labour Court to intervene. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 02, 2009 Pankaj*