Post covers Extension in Service Case High Court Chandigarh The policy granting extension to the employees has since been scrapped by the Punjab Government
Case- SURESH KUMAR VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
The petitioner, Suresh Kumar, filed a civil writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, under article 226/227 of the Constitution, against the respondent – State of Punjab, to pass an order or direct the respondents to grant 1st extension of service w.e.f. 1.2.2020 to the petitioner, who is eligible for the same as per the instructions 1 of 9 dated 8.10.2021 and had applied within time on the prescribed proforma.
Also Read- How to Get Extension in a Government Job
PETITIONER:
Suresh Kumar
RESPONDENTS:
State of Punjab and others
CORUM:
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN
FACTS / CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
The petitioner has contended that he was initially appointed as Clerk in the respondent – Department on 12.8.1983 and was promoted as Senior Assistant in September, 2000 and then as Superintendent in May, 2011 and thereafter as Administrative Officer on 25.9.2017; his date of birth is 20.1.1962. The petitioner was to retire from service after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.1.2020. According to the petitioner, his work and conduct during his service career of 36 ½ years has been excellent and outstanding. Further it has been contended that, the Government of Punjab had issued a circular dated 8.10.2012 granting extension in service beyond the date of retirement of the Punjab Government employees of all groups i.e. Group A, Group B, Group C and Group D by one year requiring the employees to give their option, which was to be final and irrevocable, thereafter, the Government decided to grant the 2nd extension in service of 1 year from 59 to 60 years vide circular dated 20.9.2013. As per the instructions issued by the respondents certain categories of persons would not be considered for extension in service and furthermore those employees who are on extension of the 1st year or 2nd year in their service tenure and are covered under the situation mentioned in the instructions dated 30.4.2015, their cases will be reviewed i.e. Persons against whom decision had been taken to issue charge sheet under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules or against whom charge sheet had been issued.
Also Read- Job extension from high court chandigarh Archives
The petitioner had applied for extension in service for the 1st year, submitting his option to the Circle Office, Hoshiarpur, who forwarded it to the office of respondent No.2 on 17.10.2019; respondent No.2 recommended and forwarded the case of the petitioner to respondent No.1 on 17.12.2019 along with the certificate that no departmental/vigilance case was pending against the petitioner. The petitioner continued to discharge his duties even after 31.1.2020 till 3.3.2020. He was on leave on March 04 and 05, 2020 and was not allowed to attend the duty on 6.3.2020.
On 4.3.2020, the petitioner submitted a detailed request letter to respondent No.1 requesting for issuance of grant of 1st extension since he had applied in time and his case stood duly recommended and there was nothing adverse against him but to not effect. The petitioner is yet to be paid his salary for the period 1.2.2020 till 6.3.2020. On 6.3.2020 when the petitioner was not allowed to attend the office, he made inquiries and came to know that an 3 of 9 order dated 3.3.2020 had been issued by respondent No.1, retiring the petitioner without any reference to his option for the 1st extension in service and without recording any reason in absolute violation of principle of natural justice. The order dated 3.3.2020 has not been communicated to the petitioner till date.
Also Read- Types of Service Matters in Cat Tribunal Chandigarh
ARUGUMENTS BY THE PETITIONER:
According to the petitioner, amendment of Rule 3.26 of Punjab Civil Services Volume 1 Part I is not applicable to the case of the petitioner since the amendment had been made on 2.3.2020 and is effective from that date. The case of the petitioner is prior thereto and extension in service cannot be denied to him on that ground. Both the amendment dated 2.3.2020 and instructions dated 2.3.2020 permit that any person who is availing or opting for the 1st extension in service, which is “scheduled to start any time till the 1st day of September, 2020 shall, upon opting for such extension, retire on the 30th day of September, 2020”. According to the petitioner he has been retired retrospectively, which is not permissible under the law.
Also read- Extension in service after superannuation – Indian Kanoon
ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT:
The respondents contended that though the petitioner had applied for extension on 11.10.2019 and his request was processed and was under consideration of the Government ,when he had filed the writ petition. It is contended that date of birth of the petitioner happened to be 20.1.1962, as such he was to be retired from service after attaining the age of 5 of 9 superannuation on 31.1.2020 regarding which the petitioner was well aware, being Administrative Officer having full control over the office, however, he did not bring this fact to the notice of the higher authority and continued to discharge his duty on his post, even after 31.1.2020 till 3.3.2020 without getting any permission from the competent authority. The competent authority has disallowed his attendance on 2nd March and 3rd March, 2020, when this fact came to the notice of the department, the petitioner was immediately retired from service vide order dated 3.3.2020 w.e.f. 31.1.2020. Such act and conduct of the petitioner debars him from seeking extension. The Punjab Government in order to generate employment for the youth of the State vide its decision dated 2.3.2020 had scrapped the policy of granting extension in service to its employees after retirement approving the proposal to reduce the retirement age of government employees from 60 to 58.
Also Read- Extension+in+service | India Judgments | Law | CaseMine
JUDGEMENT:
The court held that there is a lapse on the part of other officers (officials) of the department also but for that reason the petitioner cannot get any advantage by default. The period of his service from 1.2.2020 up to 3.3.2020 has admittedly not been regularized so far. Simply for the reason that he continued attending office up to 3.3.2020 does not bestow any valuable right upon him to ask for salary and other consequential benefits during that period. He was rightly retired from service w.e.f. 31.1.2020 and no fault can be found with the order passed in that regard. The impugned order retiring the petitioner from service w.e.f. 31.1.2020 narrates the true factual position and it cannot be said that the petitioner has been retired from service retrospectively. Attending office and working as Administrative Officer after 31.1.2020 till 3.3.2020 was totally unauthorized, wrong, illegal and unjustified. He cannot claim any benefit for such services rendered. Grant of extension to employees in an arbitrary manner adopting pick and choose policy cannot be approved of i.e. Government cannot grant extension to some employees or refuse the same to others without 7 of 9 any justifiable reason but then discretion to do so always rest with the Government and it cannot be taken away.
Also Read- Service+extension+government | India Judgments – CaseMine
As regards application of the petitioner seeking extension, the same was still under process and final order in that regard had not been passed, when the petitioner without waiting for final order to be passed on his application and make the request to the concerned authorities in that regard opted to seek judicial intervention by way of filing the present writ petition. The policy granting extension to the employees has since been scrapped by the Punjab Government statedly for providing more job avenues to the unemployed youth in the State. Rule 3.26 of Punjab Civil Services has since been amended. The Government in view of the conduct of the petitioner in omitting to demit the office on 31.1.2020 and thereafter attending office and marking his presence in an unauthorized manner has not accepted the request of the petitioner for grant of extension. No fault can be found with action of the Government in doing so. Rather if the petitioner is granted extension in service as claimed by him that would amount to putting pressure on his wrong and illegal acts discussed earlier in the judgment
Also Read- Mode of recruitment and appointment – DOPT
This post is written by Gopika Thakur.
For case specific advice, please contact Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh best top expert service lawyers.
More on 99888-17966.
