Gist of the case :- Disciplinary proceeding was initiated by the Punjab State Government against one of their employees. During pendency of the proceeding, the said employee put in his papers for voluntary retirement citing health problems. Accepting the same, the said disciplinary proceeding was dropped. The employee however, was not paid his retiral benefits. Aggrieved thereof, the employee filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Hon'ble High Court adjourned the matter on the assurance of the Director, Public Relations, Government of Punjab that he would personally look into the matter and pass appropriate order keeping in mind the sickness of the petitioner. Thereafter, by an order dated 18.9.2003 the respondent's offer for voluntary retirement from service was accepted w.e.f. 5.6.1969 (A.N.). The date on which the said employee had last attended the office was construed to be his last day for working in the Department.

At this stage with the request for voluntary retirement accepted by the authorities, one would normally hope to get his/ her retirement benefits. But it was not to be. Inspite of the above said Order, the employee did not get his benefits and was forced to approach the Hon'ble High Court for redressal again. The Hon'ble High Court was convinced that no payment was made to the said employee on the ground that requisite pension papers were not signed by him. This time around Hon'ble High Court was firm and directed the State Government to get the pension papers signed by the employee within one week from the date of the Order ( i.e 02.02.2004 ) . Keeping in account his advanced age, the State Government was requested to get the papers signed from the employee by not requiring him to attend the office. The State Government was further directed to release all retiral benefits including pension etc. within four weeks.

So does our employee get his benefits ? Not yet. Instead, a review application was filed in the High Court alleging that the said employee did not satisfy the mandatory provisions of Rule 592 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, 1969, for grant of retiral benefit to him.

The High Court dismissed the review application holding that :-

•  No action under Punjab Civil Service Rules, was taken against the employee although a department enquiry was commended against him which was later on dropped suo motu.

•  The respondent ( State Government ) must be deemed to have accepted the medical infirmity of the petitioner to discharge his duties.

•  Even if an order was passed under wrong statutory rules, there was sufficient scope to consider the claim of the non-applicant/petitioner for retirement on medical grounds.

•  In the facts and circumstances of this case, the ends of justice would be met if the order of voluntary retirement passed by the Director, Information & Public Relations, Punjab, in favour of the non-applicant / petitioner w.e.f. 5.6.1969 is treated as under retirement on medical grounds.

Accordingly, the High Court directed that the employee shall be entitled to pensionary benefits as directed in their order dated 02.02.2004 The High Court issued a further direction that such directives should be complied with within a period of two months from the said date.

Is the ordeal over for the beleaguered employee. No !!! Far from complying with the Hon'ble High Court order, this time it was the turn of the Punjab Government to move the Supreme Court.

The learned counsel for the State Government submitted that the High Court had committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment as it failed to take into consideration that the said employee was not eligible to obtain the retiral benefits pursuant to or in furtherance of his offer of voluntary retirement made in the year 1969, in view of the fact that

a)       the Voluntary Retirement Rules were not in force at the relevant time.

b)       the employee had not completed the qualifying period of service.

Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that

•  The above pleas raised by the counsel were available in the writ petition before the High Court.

•  Even then, the Director, Information & Public Relations, Punjab, had made a representation in the Court that he would look into the matter personally and pass appropriate orders.

•  The Director, Information & Public Relations, Punjab being the Head of the Department and thus a responsible officer, was expected to know the consequences of making such representation before a Superior Court.

•  It is not in dispute that the The Director, Information & Public Relations, Punjab himself had passed an order on 18.9.2003 accepting the offer of voluntary retirement made by the employee.

•  Even if the said order was passed by way of a mistake, the least which could be done by the said authority was to recall the said order after complying with the principles of natural justice.

•  Not only such an action was not taken, an order was allowed to be passed by the High Court on 2.2.2004 without making any endeavour to get the purported mistake corrected.

The counsel for the State Government informed the Hon'ble Apex Court that the above contention of the Apex Court had been raised in the counter affidavit filed before the High Court as also at the hearing thereof. Delving into the facts and particulars, The Apex Court held that

•  On perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, we do not find that such a contention was raised.

•  If the High Court had failed to take into consideration any submission made before it, in view of the well-settled principle of law, the remedy of the appellants was to approach the High Court.

•  A review petition indeed was filed but therein also no such contention was raised that the disciplinary proceedings having been initiated against the respondent, the respondent was otherwise not entitled to any retiral benefits.

•  In fact, as noticed hereinbefore, the said disciplinary proceedings have rightly or wrongly been dropped.

•  It is, therefore, not open for the appellants to contend that a contention had indeed been raised before the High Court in the review proceedings.

•  In any event, the same could not have been entertained by the High Court as the said question has not been raised in the writ petition.

•  It has not been explained before the High Court or for that matter before us, as to why no action was taken on the offer made by the respondent and why the disciplinary proceedings had been dropped.

•  If the disciplinary proceedings as against the respondent were dropped and that the offer of voluntary retirement had not been accepted, he would be deemed to be continuing in service till he reached the age of superannuation, the logical consequence whereof could be that he would be entitled to the full retiral benefits which were payable to him in accordance with law.

•  The State, therefore, will have to pay the retiral benefits to which the respondent was entitled to pursuant to or in furtherance of the offer made by it before the High Court.

•  In the peculiar facts and circumstance of this case, we do not think it proper to interfere with the judgment of the High Court.

•  Considering the age of the said employee ( he was 80 yrs by the time the matter was in High Court ) , The State should bear and pay the costs of the employee which is quantified at Rs. 10,000/-.

Before Parting : The Government in this case probably just followed the Pfeifer's Principle - "Never make a decision you can get someone else to make" . However this time around it was not free of cost!!!

(See -2006-HRIOL-12-SC-SERVICE- in 'SC')