IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 17566 of 2005 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 08.10.2009 Chander Ram ... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Puri, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate, for respondent No.3. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner, who has retired as Safai Sewak from Municipal Council, Malout (respondent No.3 herein), has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing the following directions : (i) His deemed date of retirement should be taken as 31.7.2005 instead of 31.1.2005 and he should be paid salary for the said period with interest. CWP No. 17566 of 2005 -2- (ii) His last pay drawn be re-fixed after giving the benefit of ACP on completion of 32 years of service. (iii) The gratuity, leave encashment, Provident Fund & C.P.F, Medical Allowance, DA and Bonus, which have not been released, be released to him. In the petition, it has been alleged that the petitioner was appointed as Safai Sewak on 15.9.1971 and was confirmed as such on 15.9.1973. It is stated that in the service book, his date of birth has been recorded as 1.7.1945, but he has been wrongly retired on 31.1.2005, instead of 31.7.2005. It is further stated that he was not given the benefit of ACP on completion of 32 years of service, which was to be given to him on 15.9.2003, therefore, his last pay drawn was wrongly fixed as Rs. 4850/- whereas it should have been Rs. 5160/-. It has been alleged that the complete retiral benefits, like gratuity, leave encashment, Provident Fund & CPF, Medical Allowance, DA and Bonus have not been paid to him. In the written statement, filed on behalf of respondent No.3, it has been stated that the petitioner has mis-stated the facts and has concealed the material facts from the Court. It is stated that in the service record of the petitioner, there was an ambiguity with regard to his date of birth. He was asked to remove that ambiguity. On that, the petitioner himself filed an application along with an affidavit that his date of birth is 2.1.1945 and the same be corrected in his service record. The said application, duly signed by the petitioner, and the affidavit duly sworn by him, have been annexed as CWP No. 17566 of 2005 -3- Annexures R-1 and R-2. It has been stated that in pursuance of the said application and the affidavit, submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.3 passed resolution dated 30.12.2004, whereby prayer of the petitioner was accepted and his date of birth was corrected as 2.1.1945, according to which he was retired on 31.1.2005. With regard to his retiral benefits, it has been stated that all the retiral benefits have been paid to the petitioner and nothing is due against respondent No.3. Regarding the grant of ACP scheme on completion of 32 years of service, it has been stated that the petitioner was granted the benefit of 24 years of service with effect from 1.3.1998 and since thereafter, he had not completed 8 years of service and he retired on 31.1.2005, he was not entitled for the benefit of ACP on completion of 32 years of service. It is stated that the last pay drawn of the petitioner was rightly fixed. To the written statement filed by respondent No.3, the petitioner filed replication stating therein that he never made any request for change of his date of birth, which was wrongly and illegally changed by respondent No.3 at its own. It is stated that the petitioner did not give willfully the application (Annexure R-1) as well as affidavit (Annexure R-2) and the respondents might have got the thumb impression of the petitioner on the same, as he is an illiterate person. Therefore, his date of birth is 1.7.1945. I have heard counsel for the parties. In my opinion, the petitioner has not approached this court with clean hands and has taken false CWP No. 17566 of 2005 -4- plea. From the perusal of the application (Annexure R-1) as well as affidavit (Annexure R-2) and the subsequent resolution passed by respondent No.3, which has also been annexed by respondent No.3 as Annexure R-3, it is amply clear that when the petitioner was asked to clear the ambiguity regarding his date of birth, he moved application (Annexure R-1) with his affidavit (Annexure R-2) stating that his date of birth is 2.1.1945 and the same should be recorded in his service record. On the basis of the said application and the affidavit, resolution was passed by respondent No.3 and the date of birth of the petitioner was corrected as 2.1.1945. According to the said date of birth, he was retired. Now, in the replication, the petitioner has taken false stand that he did not give any such application or affidavit to respondent No.3. The petitioner admits his thumb impressions on the application as well as affidavit, but he explained that he is an illiterate person and respondent No.3 might have got his thumb impression on those papers. This stand taken by the petitioner is palpably false and cannot be believed. A perusal of the affidavit clearly indicates that the same was got attested from Notary. The petitioner is denying his thumb impression and in order to take illegal gain, he made this false averment. There was no motive for respondent No.3 to take the thumb impression of the petitioner on blank papers and then convert the same in application and affidavit. The allegations levelled by the petitioner in the replication are totally false and not believable. In view of the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner, in my CWP No. 17566 of 2005 -5- opinion, he is not entitled for any equitable relief from this court. Though all the retiral benefits have been paid to him. On completion of 24 years of service, he was granted the ACP with effect from 1.3.1998, therefore, on the date of his retirement on 31.1.2005, he was not entitled for the benefit of another ACP on completion of 32 years of service, which has rightly been declined to him. In spite of all these facts, the petitioner has filed the instant petition making false averments. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed with costs. The costs are assessed at Rs. 25,000/-. October 08, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE