- (1.) The petitioner has sought a mandate from this Court to the respondents to release his pension and other retirement benefits and has also prayed that the order issued by respondent No. 2 to the effect that the petitioner is not entitled to be paid anything extra except what was paid to him during the period of his suspension, be quashed.
(2.) The facts :- The petitioner was initially appointed as a third Assistant Accountant on temporary basis in the District Board, Gurgoan, on March 5, 1957 in the pay scale of Rs. 60-175. The services of the petitioner and other employees working in the District Boards were taken over by the Haryana State (Respondent No. 1). The employees whose services were taken over by Respondent No. 1 became eligible for pension and other benefits, viz., Provident Fund, with effect from November 1, 1966. The petitioner was posted as Tax Collector in Block Rewari from June 9, 1967 to May 18, 1977. He was psoted as such in Block Mohindergarh from May 19, 1977 to May 23, 1980 and in Block Kanina from May 31, 1980 till his suspension on November 11, 1981. He was suspended on the allegation that he had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 8,491.12. First Information Report was lodged against him under Section 409, Indian Penal Code. He was challenged and tried for the aforesaid offence, but ultimately he was acquitted on February 18, 1989. During his suspension, he received notice dated March 17, 1987 from the Director of Panchayats, Haryana, Chandigarh under Rule 5.32(C) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.II read with Rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services, Vol. I, Part I, intimating him that after attaining the age 55 years he would be deemed to have retired from service. The order further provided that the petitioner will be entitled to pension and gratuity subject to the decision of the criminal case under Section 409, Indian Penal Code, rending against him. He moved respondents No. 1 and 2 for the release of his pensionary benefits after the order of acquittal was passed by the Criminal Court. The claim was declined by respondent No. 2 vide order dated August 31, 1989.
(3.) Written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3. It was admitted that the employees of the erstwhile Zila Parishad and Panchayat Samitis are entitled to pensionary benefits subject to the condition that such employees will deposit the share of contribution made by the erstwhile Zila Parishad and Panchayat Samitis towards their provident fund in full with effect from November 1, 1966 or from the date they become the members of Provident Fund, whichever is later, with interest thereon in Government treasury in lump sum. The petitioner's case for grant of pension, gratuity, provident fund and other benefits could not be finalised since he did not submit his pension papers.;