Surinder Kaur vs State of Punjab and others

Rajan Gupta, J.—The petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing respondents to release all the retiral benefits to the petitioner who retired from service on 30th September, 2008 on attaining the age of superannuation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner has not been given the retiral dues despite he having superannuated after rendering number of years of service.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case.

A perusal of Annexure P-3 annexed with the petition shows that a charge-sheet was served on the petitioner under Rule 8 of the Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1970 for having remained absent w.e.f. 15.5.2003 onwards. The result of the inquiry instituted pursuant to the charge sheet is not known. According to counsel, the petitioner had applied for leave without pay w.e.f. 15th May, 2003 due to domestic problems as her children had migrated to foreign country. She thereafter retired on 30th September, 2008. But as leave was not sanctioned, retiral dues remained pending. I am not convinced with the arguments raised by the learned counsel. It appears that material facts have been concealed in the writ petition. The fate of the inquiry instituted pursuant to charge-sheet (Annexure P-3) has not been revealed. I, thus, find no merit in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed.