HC reserves order on Dogra8217;s plea

CHANDIGARH, Feb 8: Extending the stay on Central Administrative Tribunal's order quashing extension in service granted to Punjab Director...

CHANDIGARH, Feb 8: Extending the stay on Central Administrative Tribunal8217;s order quashing extension in service granted to Punjab Director General of Police P.C. Dogra, a division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court today reserved orders on his petition.

Pronouncing the orders in the open court, Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice Amar Dutt observed: quot;Since the order is being reserved after hearing lengthy arguments, we extend the interim order till the announcement of judgmentquot;.The bench, comprising Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice Iqbal Singh, on the last date of hearing had stayed the Tribunal8217;s order till February 9 to quot;the extent it related to the post of the Director General of Police and the continuation of the petitioner on itquot;.

Today, continuing with the arguments against the Tribunal8217;s order, Dogra8217;s counsel stated that according to the amended rules, the petitioner8217;s retirement age had been increased to 60 years. The amended rule, he added, was retrospective in nature and as such would apply to all officers who were on extension.

Claiming extension to mean continuation in service, Dogra8217;s counsel added that on May 13, when the notification enhancing the age was issued, the petitioner acquired the right to remain in service till he was 60.

He further added that Dogra, being an officer to all India service, was governed either by the amended or the unamended rule. Going by the unamended rule, Dogra could be granted extension till the age of 60, while the amended rule permitted him to stay in service till 60, he argued.

Opposing the arguments, the counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner had no locus standi to file the petition.

Claiming the right to withdraw the extension granted to an officer, he stated that neither the State of Punjab nor the Union of India had challenged the Tribunal8217;s order.

Story continues below this ad

He added that the notification was not applicable as the petitioner had attained the age of 58 years in March, 1998, and was given extension in service with effect from April 1, 1998, while the amendment was issued on May 13, 1998.

The Tribunal, it may be recalled, in its order pronounced on January 28, had quashed Government of India8217;s order granting six months extension in service to Dogra. It had, however, stayed the order8217;s operation for seven days to enable the Punjab Government for taking quot;appropriate steps for appointing a suitable officer of the service as the Director General of Policequot;.

Challenging the order on as many as 11 grounds running into more than 30 pages, Dogra8217;s counsel had also sought directions to the Union of India for allowing him to continue in service till the expiry of the extension period.