C.W.P No. 871 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 871 of 2008 Date of decision : February 03, 2009 Balwan Singh ...... Petitioner (s) v. State of Haryana and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Navin Daryal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana for the respondents. *** 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 (Oral) This writ petition has been filed against the order whereby the period from 26.2.1981 to 4.10.1984 has been considered to be a break in service, thus, dis-entitling the petitioner from pension. The services of the petitioner had been terminated on 26.2.1981 and in appeal, it was held as follows :- “4. After considering his reply, the General Manager vide his order No.844/ECC dated 26.2.81 terminated the services of the appellant. C.W.P No. 871 of 2008 ::2:: I find that although the order appealed against is perfectly legal and valid because all procedural formalities have been completed, yet I feel that the punishment of termination inflicted by the General Manager is too harsh and incommensurate to the guilt involved. The appellant appeared before me for personal hearing on 3.2.1984 and assured me of his good conduct in future. He also begged for mercy. Taking a lenient view, I reinstate him in service giving him one more chance. He shall however not be paid anything for the period during which he remained out of service.” The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that even though he was not to get any payment for the period he remained out of job yet in view of his reinstatement and in view of the termination order having been set aside, it could not be said that this was a break in service. Another ground taken to deny the benefit is that the petitioner has challenged the order of 1984 after 24 years. In my opinion, the petitioner is not challenging the order dated 20.9.1984. He is challenging the action of the respondents in denying him pension on the ground that the said order has been treated by them to be an order of fresh appointment. Thus, this writ petition cannot be said to be barred by delay and laches. The only objection made by the Accountant General was that the period of service i.e 26.2.1981 to 4.10.1984 could not be considered for the benefit of pension till the said period is condoned under rule 4.23 of the C.W.P No. 871 of 2008 ::3:: Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol II Part II. In fact, the General Manager, Haryana State Transport Panipat, by letter (Annexure P-5) requested respondent No.2 to condone the said period precisely on this very ground. However, no order has been passed despite the petitioner having served a legal notice. In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and a direction is issued to respondent No.2 to pass an order on the condonation of the period from 26.2.1981 to 4.10.1984 in view of the fact that the termination order of the petitioner has been set aside and he has been reinstated in service and thereafter his case be considered for pensionary and other retiral benefits. Needful shall be done within four months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. Considering the fact that the petitioner retired on attaining the age of supperannuation as far back as on 31.5.2006 and his case has been delayed only for want of sanction, and the delay cannot be attributed to him, he will be entitled to interest @ 8% pa on such retiral dues which have not been paid to him w.e.f 1.12.2006 till the date of payment. In case, the needful is not done within four months, the petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @ 8% on the amount of interest till the date of actual payment. ( AJAY TEWARI ) February 03, 2009. JUDGE `kk'