Post Covers Service Extension Chandigarh CAT Bench Case wherein employee denied benefit as lapse of 2 years occurred but allowed to avail other remedy consequential benefits.
BENEFIT OF EXTENSION IN SERVICE DENIED AFTER EXPIRY OF 2 YEARS TIME PERIOD
Judgement Digest: Gulshan Kumar Versus Chandigarh Administration and others.
Also Read- Extension in Service Case High Court Chandigarh
Case Briefing:
The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 09.06.2016 and the order dated 23.08.2016 which have been impugned herein. Vide the said orders, the petitioner was denied benefit of first extension in service after attaining the age of superannuation on turning 58 years.
Ld. Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the sole ground of rejection, as reflected from the impugned order dated 09.06.2016, is that the petitioner is involved in a vigilance inquiry No.20/VIG/C, dated 29.05.2015, which was stated to be under investigation. He states that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 13.06.2016 stating that he has never been involved in any such vigilance inquiry.
Also Read- Service Extension CAT Chandigarh Bench Case
The petitioner in his representation dated 13.06.2016 also stated that FIR No.1 dated 13.01.2016 was, in fact, pending against one Sh. Amin Chand, who was his colleague. Therefore, the same had no significance qua the case of the petitioner. Learned Senior counsel points out that interestingly, the said Sh. Amin Chand was granted the benefit of extension of service on attaining the age of superannuation, despite pendency of a specific vigilance inquiry against him. Notwithstanding, the petitioner’s representation, on the other hand, was rejected summarily, vide impugned order dated 23.08.2016 without making any inquiries with regard to the pendency of the vigilance inquiry. It was stated once again that he was being retired and relieved from the service, subject to the outcome of the vigilance inquiry, ibid.
Also Read- How to Get Extension in a Government Job
Judgement of the case:
Ld. Judge is of the view that the impugned orders dated 09.06.2016 and 23.08.2016 do not stand the judicial scrutiny and are not tenable. It is rather intriguing that a person who was directly involved in the ongoing investigation vide FIR No.01 dated 13.01.2016 as also the vigilance inquiry, was given the benefit, but the petitioner, for no fault of his, had to suffer the consequences of the pendency of a vigilance inquiry qua his colleague. To be noted here that it is nowhere the case of the respondents that at the relevant time any departmental proceedings under Rule 8 of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules were pending or even contemplated. It follows that the impugned order has been passed without any valid reason.
Also Read- Sh. Feroz Ahmed vs Delhi Development Authority on 3 July, 2015
With regard to the relief to be granted in the present petition, even though the petitioner was entitled for the same at the time of filing of the petition, however, during the pendency of the petition, the period of extension of 2 years has lapsed. Therefore, the benefit of extension in service cannot be granted at this stage. In view thereof, the present writ petition is partly allowed to the extent that impugned orders dated 09.06.2016 and 23.08.2016 are set aside, with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy qua denial of the benefit of extension of service on attaining the age of superannuation.
This post is written by Sonica Dhankhar.
For case specific advice, please contact Chandigarh Administrative Tribunal/Service Matter/Labour and Service/CAT/Legal Aid/Administrative/Senior/Service Employment Lawyers Advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur etc.
Also Read- O.A.No. 4117 Of 2012 vs Union Of India And Others 31 Jan, 2014
More on 99888-17966.
