Rameshwar Singh Malik, J. - (1.) PETITIONER impugns the order dated 28.11.2011 (Annexure P -6), wherein his service of 4 years 7 months and 90 days was not counted for the purpose of qualifying service for pension, despite the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 4.5.1987 (Annexure P -1), whereby he was ordered to be reinstated in service.
(2.) NOTICE of motion was issued and pursuant thereto written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not claiming any back wages or arrears of salary in the present case. The only relief which is sought by the petitioner is that impugned order dated 28.11.2011 (Annexure P -6) be set aside being illegal, because his service of 4 years 7 months and 90 days has been illegally ignored while counting his qualifying service for the purpose of pension. He would next contend that petitioner was also entitled for counting of his service for 3 years 9 months and 22 days, i.e. suspension period for the purpose of qualifying service for pension. To support his contentions, he relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bibhuti Bhushan Chaudhary v. Union of India and another, : (1997) 11 SCC 373 and also the judgment of this Court in Manohar Lal v. The State of Punjab and another,, 2009(1) SCT 108. He finally prays for setting aside the impugned order, while allowing the present writ petition.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that since the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not grant the relief of continuity of service to the petitioner vide above -said order Annexure P -1, petitioner was not entitled for the said relief. Regarding suspension period, she submits that since petitioner remained under suspension for misconduct, he was not entitled for counting his suspension period for the purpose of qualifying service for pension. Learned counsel for the State also submits that petitioner retired in the year 2002, whereas he has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition after an inordinate long delay of about 8 years and thus, the petition was liable to be dismissed.;