- (1.) The petitioner has sought a mandate from this Court to the respondents to sanction the retirement benefits of pension gratuity and leave encashment.
(2.) Facts first. The petitioner was appointed as Surveyor by Executive Engineer, Delhi Division on September 1, 1964 and was posted as such in the Bunds Sub-Division. He was promoted as Overseer, later redesignated as Junior Engineer, with effect from February 1, 1959. He was ordered to be reverted to the lower post of Surveyor with effect from May 17, 1972. This order was challenged through CWP No. 1619 of 1972, in this Court. The same was dismissed vide order dated October 14, 1981. Resultantly, the order of reversion was upheld. The State of Haryana introduced the scheme which was published vide F.D. Circular letter No. 1/2(27)-79-I-FRI dated August 1, 1980 under which an employees could seek voluntary retirement after having put in at least 20 years qualifying service with the permission of the competent authority. The petitioner sought voluntary retirement under this scheme on December 8, 1981. The request was not accepted. The competent authority issued a charge-sheet vide letter No. 1443/PF dated March 9, 1982 under Rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1952 (for short the Rules). The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet. It appears that the Enquiry Officer did not hold the enquiry. He was of the opinion that applicability of these rules to work-charge employees appears to be doubtful. The work-charge employees were governed by the provisions of PWD Code and not by Civil Services Rules. He further found that it was correct that the petitioner did not possess the requisite technical qualifications for appointment as Junior Engineer. The petitioner had rendered 22 years of qualifying service and was even permitted to cross efficiency bar as Junior Engineer a number of time. So, the benefit of qualifying service should not be denied to him and he recommended that request for grant of voluntary retirement should be accepted. The report of the Enquiry Officer was not accepted by the Superintendent Engineer, Ujina Division, Circle No. 2, Gurgaon. The petitioner's request for voluntary retirement having been rejected as he was directed to report for duty within seven days. It appears that the petitioner did not join duty, but filed civil suit No. 197 in the court of Subordinate Judge, Gurgaon challenging the reversion order passed by the Superintendent Engineer, Ujina Division, Circle No. 2, Gurgaon dated December 8, 1981 reverting him from the post of Overseer/Junior Engineer to that of a Surveyor and the orders dated March 9, 1982 and February 15, 1982, respectively, passed by the Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Gurgaon, charge-sheeting him and for not granting him permission to retire from service voluntarily. The suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated April 9, 1986 and the same was upheld in appeal by the District Judge, Gurgaon vide judgment and decree dated September 22, 1986. The petitioner submitted representation to the competent authorities for granting him the benefit of pension and gratuity. The request was decline vide letter No. 10479/80/9E dated 4.8.1987 by the Superintendent Engineer, UDD Circle No. II (I.B.) Gurgaon with the following observations :- "As intimated by the Executive Engineer, "Drainage Division, Gurgaon, you were reverted from Junior Engineer to the post of Surveyor (W.C.) being an unqualified, but you absented yourself and did not join your duties as Surveyor (W.C.) The Civil Suit filed by you in the Court has also been dismissed by the Court as such nothing is now admissible to you please." This order has been challenged in this writ petition.
(3.) Written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It was pleaded, inter alia, that the petitioner had no locus standi to maintain the writ petition as he had absented himself from October 31, 1981, till date, which amounts to misconduct and wilful absence from duty and he is not entitled to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. It was also admitted that the petitioner was allowed to cross efficiency bar, but they were not aware that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications to continue as Junior Engineer. The reversion order was challenged through a writ petition in this Court, which was also dismissed. The petitioner's request for voluntary retirement having been refused, he was directed to report for duty but he did not do so. It was also pleaded that the rules contained in C.S.R. Volume I for grant of pensionary and gratuity benefits are not applicable to work-charge employees.;