Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 762 (PNJ)

Harlal Singh v. State Of Punjab

2004-07-27

NIRMAL SINGH, S.S.NIJJAR

body2004
Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case. 2. The petitioner retired, on superannuation, on 30.11.1999 after serving the State of Punjab and the Punjab School Education Board for a period of 33 years. For the pur poses of fixation of pension and retiral dues, the petitioner has not been given benefit of the entire service. This has resulted in his basic pension being fixed at Rs. 4200/- instead of Rs. 8400/-, to which he claims to be entitled if the benefit of entire service of 33 years is given. 3. The petitioner joined Health Department, Punjab as Technical Assistant on 22.12.1962. He was posted at P.G.I., Chandigarh. He improved his qualification to M.A. during service. He was duly selected by the Punjab Public Service Commission as Lec turer on 23.07.1971. He was provisionally relieved from his previous assignment on 30.07.1971 and he joined as Lecturer on 31.07.1971 (F.N.) in the Education Depart ment, Punjab. He was finally relieved on 02.08.1971. In the year 1983, the Punjab School Education Board (respondent No. 2), advertised one post of Deputy Secretary (Administration). The requisite qualifications for the aforesaid post were as under:- "Masters degree or LL.B., of recognised University or its equivalent qualification and 15 years experience in Educational Administration-cum-Teaching out of which five years experience should be as District Education Officer or its equivalent or higher grade post." 4. The petitioner was selected for appointment. It appears that the petitioner was sent to the respondent-Board on deputation. He was relieved on 04.07.1983 (A.N.) by the Education Department. He joined the respondent-Board as Deputy Secretary (Administration) on 05.07.1983 (F.N.). By order dated 07.09.1986, the petitioner was permanently absorbed in the respondent-Board with effect from 05.07.1983 as Deputy Secretary (Administration). The order is stated to have been passed in the Public Interest. His lien was, therefore, terminated in the Education Department. The G.P.F. amount of the petitioner was transferred to the respondent-Board in due course after complying with the necessary formalities. During his service in the Board, the petitioner was promoted as Director, Evaluation and Planning. Nomenclature of this post was changed to the post of Director, Academic, in the year 1981. The petitioner retired from service on superannuation on 30.11.1999. The G.P.F. amount of the petitioner was transferred to the respondent-Board in due course after complying with the necessary formalities. During his service in the Board, the petitioner was promoted as Director, Evaluation and Planning. Nomenclature of this post was changed to the post of Director, Academic, in the year 1981. The petitioner retired from service on superannuation on 30.11.1999. A letter of appreciation was issued to the petitioner by the Chairman of the respondent-Board on 29.11.1999 at the time of his farewell. After retirement, a charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner. Pension and retiral dues of the petitioner were with-held. A regular enquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer in his report exonerated the petitioner honourably of all the charges. Still the respondents did not release the retiral benefits of the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner filed CWP No. 16757 of 2000. On 08.05.2001, this Court directed the respondents to release the entire leave encashment, G.P.F. gratuity permissible and the pension. It was also directed that release of provisional pension would abide by the final order that may be passed in the writ petition. The respondents were further directed to take a final decision in the matter regarding the enquiry against the petitioner before the adjourned date. The matter was posted for hearing on 01.06.2001. According to the petitioner only partial retiral benefits were released by the respondents. The pension had been calculated by taking into account service of the petitioner from 05.07.1983 to 30.11.1999. However, the service rendered by the petitioner with the Punjab Government from 22.12.1962 till 04.07.1983 was ignored. The petitioner made various representations to the respondents for refixing the pension and retiral dues. Since no action had been taken, the petitioner served a legal notice on 14.06.2001 on the respondent-Board. The aforesaid writ petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench on 15.07.2002. It was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the legal notice within a period of one month from the date of certified copy of the order is brought to the notice of the respondent-Board. The petitioner has been served with an order dated 18.09.2002 stating that the petitioner cannot be granted the pensionary benefits for the period he rendered service with the Government. It is this order which is challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has been served with an order dated 18.09.2002 stating that the petitioner cannot be granted the pensionary benefits for the period he rendered service with the Government. It is this order which is challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. It is stated that prior to the year 1991. It is stated that prior to the year 1991, the service of the respondent-Board was not pensionable. The employees of the respondent-Board were governed by the Punjab School Board (Provident Fund) Regulations, 1970. The respondent-Board promulgated Punjab School Education Board (Employees Pension Provident Fund and Gratuity) Regulations, 1991. These regulations came into force with effect from 01.04.1991. Under the regulations, it is provided that only such Board employees were qualified for pension who were holding substantively permanent posts on the date of their retirement. Regulation 4 provides that the regulations shall apply, inter-alia, to the employees taken on deputation from other departments but later on absorbed in the service of the Board. These Regulations are applicable if the employees opt for the same. Regulation 5 (1) defines qualifying service to include all periods spent on duty without interruption and all periods of leave in which leave salary is paid. Regulation 6 was amended by the Board Item No. 5(3) dated 26.03.1994 with effect from 01.04.1991, which reads as under- "6. Addition to service qualifying for pension. An employee shall be eligible to add to his service qualifying for superannuation pension (but not for any other pension) the actual period not exceeding one fourth of the length of his service or the actual period by which his age at the time of recruitment exceeded twenty five years or a period of five years, whichever is less, if the post to which he is appointed is one:- (a) for which post-graduate or specialised qualifications, or experience in scientific, technological or professional field is essential: (b) to which candidates of more than twenty five years of age are normally recruited; (c) for which special qualification and experience is required at the time of recruitment. The experience so prescribed shall be counted in Full towards qualifying service. Provided that this concession shall not be admissible to any employee whose actual qualifying service at the time of recruitment is iess than 10 years in the Board." 5. The experience so prescribed shall be counted in Full towards qualifying service. Provided that this concession shall not be admissible to any employee whose actual qualifying service at the time of recruitment is iess than 10 years in the Board." 5. Regulation 13 provides for the manner in which the pension of a retiree is to be fixed. 6. The respondents have filed a written statement. Factual position as narrated above, is not controverted. In reply to paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 of the writ petition, it is merely stated that payment of the retiral dues has been released in terms of the 1991 Regula tions. 7. Mr. Pathela appearing for the petitioner submits that the order Annexure P-10 is liable to be quashed as it is patently against the provisions of the Regulation. The peti tioner has been in continuous service of the Punjab Government and the respondent- Board. There is no interruption in the service of the petitioner. Under Regulation 6 of the Regulations, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the entire service. 8. Mr. Tewari, on the other hand, submits that under Regulation 6, the petitioner is only entitled to add l/4th of the length of his service with the State of Punjab to the service of the respondent-Board. The petitioner cannot be permitted to add the entire pe riod of service. 9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 10. It is not denied by the respondents that the petitioner is entitled to pension under the Regulations. The only question is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to add the entire service rendered with the State of Punjab for the purposes of qualifying service on the post of which the pension and the retiral dues are to be computed.lt is not disputed that the petitioner joined the State of Punjab as a Technical Assistant on 22.12.1962. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has been in uninterrupted service of the State of Punjab till he joined the Board on deputation on 05.07.1983. It is also not disputed that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Deputy Secretary (Administration) which re quire specialised qualifications. A candidate was required to have a Masters degree or LL.B. of a Recognised University. It is also not disputed that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Deputy Secretary (Administration) which re quire specialised qualifications. A candidate was required to have a Masters degree or LL.B. of a Recognised University. A candidate was also required to have 15 years expe rience in Educational Administration-cum-Teaching out of which 5 years experience has to be as the District Education Officer or its equivalent or higher grade. The petitioner competed with other candidates and was appointed on deputation as Deputy Secretary (Administration) on 05.07.1983. He was permanently absorbed as an Officer of the Board by order dated 07.09.1986 with effect from 05.07.1983. This order was passed in public interest. Clearly, therefore, in such circumstances, the petitioners case is covered under Regulations 6(c) of the Regulations. Regulation 6 (c) reproduced above, provides for adding of the entire service to qualifying service on the posts for which special qualification is required at the time of recruitment. As noticed above, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Deputy Secretary (Administration) on the basis of his special ised experience. 11. In view of the above, we find that the order Annexure P-10 is contrary to the provisions of the statutory Regulations. The present petition is, therefore, allowed. Order Annexure P-10 is quashed. The respondents are directed to fix the pension of the peti tioner by taking into account the period of service rendered by him with the Punjab Government from 22.12.1962 to 04.07.1983. The respondents are directed to re-fix the retira benefits of the petitioner. Consequential benefits be released to the petitioner within a period of two months of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.