Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83720 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13335 of 2023 Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Singh Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Pandey,Jitendra Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Sunil Sharma Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. Heard Sri Jitendra Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Piyush Tripathi, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Sunil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus to command the respondent No.- 2 to decide representation of the petitioner dated 25th July, 2022 and 11th July, 2023 by passing a reasoned and speaking order and that too in accordance with law within the stipulated period of time. From the perusal of the representation as has been brought on record it transpires that petitioner has pleaded a case that since his dismissal from service was simplicitor and not a punishment order at the time when petitioner was at the verge of retirement, he was to be held entitled to the retirement dues. It further transpires from the representation that at some earlier point of time petitioner was compulsorily retired but later on petitioner stood dismissed from service. The question now that arises for consideration of the Court is that whether a dismissed employee is entitled to any service benefits in terms of retiral dues as the order of dismissal from service is an order of punishment. Upon a pointed query being made learned counsel for the petitioner states that dismissal from service of the petitioner was by way of punishment against which he has lost his case upto Supreme Court this petitioner has himself pleaded in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that there is no circular letter much less a statutory rule, issued by the respondent department which may entitle to the petitioner to the post retirement dues even after dismissal from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner replying the argument in rejoinder drew the attention of the Court to the office memorandum issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India dated 28th August, 2020 in which vide clause 3.4 it is provided that at any time after a Government servant has completed 30 years of qualifying service he may be required by the appointing authority to retire in a public interest and in case of such retirement the Government servant shall be entitled to retirement pension. In the considered view of the Court, this provision would not be attracted to the facts of the present case as petitioner's services stood terminated by way of punishment. Petitioner having been punished by order of dismissal/ termination from service, he would not be entitled to retirement dues under any rules or circular letters. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to produce any such rules or regulations which may entitle him to such benefits. In view of the above, I do not find any force in the petition. Petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Atmesh Digitally signed by :- ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad