Sherdin vs State of Punjab and Others

Rajesh Bindal, J.—The petitioner, who is serving as Kanungo in Circle Naugajja, Tehsil Jalandhar, Sub Tehsil Kartarpur, District Jalandhar, has approached this Court with a grievance that his application for extension in service has been wrongly rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who is presently working as Kanungo in Circle Naugajja, Tehsil and District Jalandhar, is due to retire on 30.4.2014 after attaining the age of superannuation. The State vide letter dated 8.10.2012 provided for extension of one year service to the employees. Subsequent thereto on 20.9.2013, in continuation to the aforesaid letter, further extension of one year of service was provided. The option for above extension was to be exercised by the employee concerned. Though the petitioner has submitted his option on 13.1.2014, well before the date of retirement and sent reminders, however, he was surprised to receive a communication on 25.3.2014, whereby his prayer was rejected on the ground that the request was not received three months before the date of retirement. The submission is that there was no such provision in the letter providing for extension in service. It merely provided that extension could be applied three months before the retirement. The same did not mean that it was to be applied three months prior to the date of retirement. The submission is that there was no such provision in the policy.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that once it was provided for in the letter that an employee, who had three months of service left, can submit his option seeking extension in service, any application filed in a case where the time for retirement is less than three months deserved to be rejected and has rightly been rejected by the competent authority in the present case. The order does not call for any interference.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

The admitted facts on record are that the petitioner, who is due to retire on 30.4.2014, filed his application for extension in service on 13.1.2014. The same was rejected by the competent authority on 25.3.2014. The issue as to whether an application filed for extension in service when the period to retirement is less than three months is to be rejected merely on that ground or not has been considered by this Court in CWP No. 437 of 2014 Sukhvinder Jit Singh vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 18.2.2014. The relevant para thereof is extracted below:-

Still further the ground of rejection is that the employee had not filed application seeking extension in service three months before his retirement, the rejection on that ground is totally arbitrary. Initially vide policy dated 8.10.2012, one year extension in service was granted. Vide subsequent letter dated 20.9.2013, another extension in service by one year was granted. The aforesaid letter provided that this extension is allowable to only those employees who will be retiring on or after 31.10.2013. They will tender their option in the prescribed performa to the head office prior to attaining the age of 59/61 years. The policy dated 20.9.2013 does not prescribe that the application had to be submitted three months in advance. In any case, in the case in hand, before the order for relieving the petitioner after expiry of the period of one year extension in service was passed, his request for extension in service for one year was already available with the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, hence, could be considered. There is no other reason assigned on the basis of which the petitioner is not entitled to extension in service for one year as per the policy of the Government.

The object for providing a period, if any, for filing an application for extension in service is merely that there is some reasonable time with the competent authority to consider the request and take a final decision thereon. As is evident from the facts of the present case, the petitioner had moved the application for extension in service on 13.1.2014, which was declined on 25.3.2014, despite repeated reminders sent by the petitioner after filing the application. The fact that the petitioner fulfills all other conditions for extension in service is not in dispute. Once the competent authority could consider and decline the application filed by the petitioner for extension in service, there was no good reason for not accepting the same when the mind had been applied. The rejection is on the ground that the application was not filed three months in advance before the retirement. If there is such a provision, the same cannot be held to be mandatory. The question is whether there was sufficient time with the authority to consider the application or not.

For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order dated 25.3.2014 declining extension in service to the petitioner is set aside. The application of the petitioner for extension in service shall be deemed to be accepted and he shall be continue in service for a period of one year.

The writ petition stands disposed of.