AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sandeep Sharma, J
Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with passing of order dated 23.8.2019 (Annexure P-6), whereby representation having been filed by the petitioner, praying therein for premature retirement after having rendered 20 years of service, came to be rejected, petitioner approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main reliefs:-
"(a) For quashing the impugned order (annexure A-6) for rejecting the representation of the petitioner being arbitrarily, malafide and illegally by the respondents.
(b) Direct the respondents to consider his case for VRS as per prevalent rules and law."
Perusal of order dated 23.8.2019, passed by the Director, Information and Public Relation, Himachal Pradesh, reveals that since petitioner did not render minimum 20 years of service as required under CCS (Pension) Rules 48-A (1), his case for premature retirement could not be considered. Though petitioner has disputed aforesaid fact by way of instant petition, but otherwise also, during the pendency of the present petition, petitioner has completed more than 20 years of service. Admittedly, in the case at hand, petitioner was appointed as Steno Typist in the year, 1995, in the respondent-department, whereafter he continued to serve the department uninterruptedly till the year, 2013, when he allegedly went abroad without informing the department, as a result of which, disciplinary proceedings came to be initiated against him.
In May, 2015, petitioner was dismissed on account of willful absence, however, such, order was subsequently set-aside by Erstwhile Tribunal vide judgment dated 11.1.2018, passed in OA No. 4168 of 2015 having been filed by the petitioner. Though Tribunal below while passing aforesaid judgment has categorically held that petitioner would be deemed to have been reinstated in service with continuity, but even otherwise, as has been noticed herein above, petitioner by now has already completed service of more than 20 years and as such, his case is required to be considered by the department for premature retirement in terms of CCS Pension Rules-48(1).
Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for pre-mature retirement in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks, from today. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.