IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No. 17566 of 2005 ( O&M )
DATE OF DECISION : 08.10.2009
Chander Ram
... PETITIONER
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Puri, Addl. A.G., Punjab,
for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate,
for respondent No.3.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.
The petitioner, who has retired as Safai Sewak from Municipal
Council, Malout (respondent No.3 herein), has filed the instant petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing the following
directions :
(i) His deemed date of retirement should be taken as 31.7.2005 instead of
31.1.2005 and he should be paid salary for the said period with
interest.
CWP No. 17566 of 2005 -2-
(ii) His last pay drawn be re-fixed after giving the benefit of ACP on
completion of 32 years of service.
(iii) The gratuity, leave encashment, Provident Fund & C.P.F, Medical
Allowance, DA and Bonus, which have not been released, be released
to him.
In the petition, it has been alleged that the petitioner was
appointed as Safai Sewak on 15.9.1971 and was confirmed as such on
15.9.1973. It is stated that in the service book, his date of birth has been
recorded as 1.7.1945, but he has been wrongly retired on 31.1.2005, instead
of 31.7.2005. It is further stated that he was not given the benefit of ACP on
completion of 32 years of service, which was to be given to him on
15.9.2003, therefore, his last pay drawn was wrongly fixed as Rs. 4850/-
whereas it should have been Rs. 5160/-. It has been alleged that the
complete retiral benefits, like gratuity, leave encashment, Provident Fund &
CPF, Medical Allowance, DA and Bonus have not been paid to him.
In the written statement, filed on behalf of respondent No.3, it
has been stated that the petitioner has mis-stated the facts and has concealed
the material facts from the Court. It is stated that in the service record of the
petitioner, there was an ambiguity with regard to his date of birth. He was
asked to remove that ambiguity. On that, the petitioner himself filed an
application along with an affidavit that his date of birth is 2.1.1945 and the
same be corrected in his service record. The said application, duly signed by
the petitioner, and the affidavit duly sworn by him, have been annexed as
CWP No. 17566 of 2005 -3-
Annexures R-1 and R-2. It has been stated that in pursuance of the said
application and the affidavit, submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.3
passed resolution dated 30.12.2004, whereby prayer of the petitioner was
accepted and his date of birth was corrected as 2.1.1945, according to which
he was retired on 31.1.2005. With regard to his retiral benefits, it has been
stated that all the retiral benefits have been paid to the petitioner and
nothing is due against respondent No.3. Regarding the grant of ACP scheme
on completion of 32 years of service, it has been stated that the petitioner
was granted the benefit of 24 years of service with effect from 1.3.1998 and
since thereafter, he had not completed 8 years of service and he retired on
31.1.2005, he was not entitled for the benefit of ACP on completion of 32
years of service. It is stated that the last pay drawn of the petitioner was
rightly fixed.
To the written statement filed by respondent No.3, the
petitioner filed replication stating therein that he never made any request for
change of his date of birth, which was wrongly and illegally changed by
respondent No.3 at its own. It is stated that the petitioner did not give
willfully the application (Annexure R-1) as well as affidavit (Annexure R-2)
and the respondents might have got the thumb impression of the petitioner
on the same, as he is an illiterate person. Therefore, his date of birth is
1.7.1945.
I have heard counsel for the parties. In my opinion, the
petitioner has not approached this court with clean hands and has taken false
CWP No. 17566 of 2005 -4-
plea. From the perusal of the application (Annexure R-1) as well as affidavit
(Annexure R-2) and the subsequent resolution passed by respondent No.3,
which has also been annexed by respondent No.3 as Annexure R-3, it is
amply clear that when the petitioner was asked to clear the ambiguity
regarding his date of birth, he moved application (Annexure R-1) with his
affidavit (Annexure R-2) stating that his date of birth is 2.1.1945 and the
same should be recorded in his service record. On the basis of the said
application and the affidavit, resolution was passed by respondent No.3 and
the date of birth of the petitioner was corrected as 2.1.1945. According to
the said date of birth, he was retired. Now, in the replication, the petitioner
has taken false stand that he did not give any such application or affidavit to
respondent No.3. The petitioner admits his thumb impressions on the
application as well as affidavit, but he explained that he is an illiterate
person and respondent No.3 might have got his thumb impression on those
papers. This stand taken by the petitioner is palpably false and cannot be
believed. A perusal of the affidavit clearly indicates that the same was got
attested from Notary. The petitioner is denying his thumb impression and in
order to take illegal gain, he made this false averment. There was no motive
for respondent No.3 to take the thumb impression of the petitioner on blank
papers and then convert the same in application and affidavit. The
allegations levelled by the petitioner in the replication are totally false and
not believable.
In view of the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner, in my
CWP No. 17566 of 2005 -5-
opinion, he is not entitled for any equitable relief from this court. Though
all the retiral benefits have been paid to him. On completion of 24 years of
service, he was granted the ACP with effect from 1.3.1998, therefore, on the
date of his retirement on 31.1.2005, he was not entitled for the benefit of
another ACP on completion of 32 years of service, which has rightly been
declined to him. In spite of all these facts, the petitioner has filed the instant
petition making false averments.
In view of the above, this petition is dismissed with costs. The
costs are assessed at Rs. 25,000/-.
October 08, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE