IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 12898 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 24.08.2009 Dr. Ravinder Chadha .... PETITIONER Versus Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Panchkula ..... RESPONDENT CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Nikhil Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner, who has retired as Director Medical Services, Haryana Power Utilities from the respondent Nigam on 31.3.2009, on attaining the age of superannuation, has filed the instant petition for quashing the order dated 1.6.2009 (Annexure P-15), whereby his request for discontinuing the permission of private practice and allowing him Non Practice Allowance (hereinafter referred to as `NPA') has been rejected. In the present case, on 5.2.1975, the petitioner was initially appointed as Medical Officer in the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board. On 5.8.1982, he was appointed as Chief Medical Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2100 plus Rs. 100/- as special pay plus Rs. 600/- as NPA. CWP No. 12898 of 2009 -2- After splitting of the Haryana State Electricity Board, services of the petitioner were allocated to the respondent Nigam. On 9.12.2004, the petitioner was re-designated as Director Medical Services, Haryana Power Utilities and was granted the pay scale of Rs. 18400-22400 plus NPA subject to maximum of Rs. 25,000/- per month. In the month of June, 2005, the petitioner sought voluntary retirement. His request was not accepted. He was called by the Managing Director of the respondent Nigam to discuss the issue. During the said discussion, an offer was given to the petitioner that he may undertake private practice after the office hours and in lieu of that the respondent Nigam shall not pay him any NPA. It is conceded position that the petitioner accepted the said offer in writing. Consequently, the petitioner was permitted to undertake private practice after the duty hours, without any NPA. It is also conceded position that since August, 2005, the petitioner actually undertook the private practice after the office hours and did not claim any NPA. After earning a lot of money in the private practice for more than three years, one month prior to his retirement, the petitioner made an application to the respondent Nigam that he wishes to discontinue his private practice after office hours and as such, his NPA may be restored. The said request of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent Nigam vide order dated 1.6.2009. Against the said order, the instant petition has been filed. It is the case of the petitioner that on the request made by the petitioner, an opinion was sought by the respondent Nigam from the CWP No. 12898 of 2009 -3- Director, Health Services, Haryana, as to whether there was any Rule, under which one can surrender his NPA and opt for private practice. According to the learned counsel, the Director, Health Services, Haryana, replied that there was no such Rule. In view of this fact, learned counsel argued that even though the offer was accepted by the petitioner in the year 2005, but the acceptance was contrary to the Rules, therefore, the respondent Nigam has acted illegally, while not accepting the request of the petitioner for discontinuing the permission of private practice and allowing him Non Practice Allowance. Learned counsel argued that while not accepting the request of the petitioner, the petitioner would loose a recurring amount of Rs. 8,000/- per month on account of less pension, thus, the action of the respondent Nigam is illegal and arbitrary. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any substance in the instant petition. It is conceded position that in this case, the petitioner himself accepted the offer made by the Managing Director of the respondent Nigam, in writing, and opted for private practice after the office hours, by giving up his NPA. Concededly, after the said order, the petitioner has actually undertaken the private practice after the office hours upto the time of his retirement. After earning a lot of money in the private practice, in order to get the benefit of NPA in the fixation of his pension, just one month before his retirement, the petitioner moved an application. He cannot be permitted to take undue advantage because of his act and conduct. The question as to whether there was any Rule, which permits an CWP No. 12898 of 2009 -4- employee to do private practice in lieu of NPA, cannot be gone into in the case of the petitioner, because he himself after accepting the offer in writing has actually undertaken the private practice for more than three years and earned a lot of money. Accepting of the request of the petitioner will amount to his unjust enrichment in the shape of enhanced pension, which he otherwise is not entitled to, if the element of NPA is not taken into consideration. Thus, I do not find any illegality in the order dated 1.6.2009, whereby request of the petitioner for discontinuing the permission of private practice and allowing him Non Practice Allowance has been rejected. Dismissed. August 24, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE