This Court is of the view that the respondent-Department has taken a very harsh view in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Government had been encouraging the employees to take retirement and seek self employment so that State is able to fulfill the object of generating maximum employment. Notice sent by the petitioner was rejected by the Government vide Annexure R1, on 20.4.2000 on the ground that he has not completed the qualifying service. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the State Government may consider the prayer of the petitioner for grant of pro-rata pension under Rule 6.16 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II sympathetically, as this Court cannot give a categoric finding that the petitioner stood retired as he had not completed 20 years of qualifying service on the expiry of period of notice. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Ganga Bishan v. State of Haryana , 1994(3) PLR 691, wherein considering the fact that the petitioner had completed 18 years, 5 months and 15 days of service instead of 20 years of service, it was held that Rule 6.16 can be invoked. Therefore, in view of the observations made, the authorities may also consider the the ratio of judgment relied upon by counsel for the petitioner, while sympathetically considering the case of the petitioner.
