LPA No.221 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No.221 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.02.2010 Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University and another. ....Appellants. Versus Dharampal ....Respondent. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Hari Om Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Raghujeet Singh, Advocate for the appellants. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. 2. In the present appeal, order impugned is dated 4.11.2009 passed by learned Single Judge thereby allowing the writ petition of the petitioner with costs directing the respondents to accept the prayer of the petitioner for change of option from CPF to Pension Scheme and to release the benefits, in accordance with law. Learned Single Judge has also awarded costs of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner. LPA No.221 of 2010 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that when the petitioner was working as Clerk in the respondent - University, he was placed under suspension on 18.2.1993 for certain mis-conduct. On 8.11.1993, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet, to which he submitted reply, but his explanation was not accepted and a departmental enquiry was ordered. Consequently, vide order dated 30.9.1994, the petitioner was removed from service. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed appeal, which was dismissed. The petitioner challenged the order of his removal from service as well as the order of the Appellate Authority by filing a civil suit. The aforesaid suit was partly decreed on 7.3.2002, and the order of removal of the petitioner from service was set aside. He was ordered to be re-instated. Against the said judgment and decree, the petitioner as well as the respondent University filed separate appeals. Vide judgment dated 10.1.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sirsa, (Annexure P-1) appeal of the respondent – University was dismissed. Consequently, vide order dated 21.3.2006 the petitioner was re-instated in service. During the period, the petitioner was under suspension, the respondent University had introduced the Pension Scheme vide notification dated 9.4.1993, with retrospective effect from 1.1.1992. All the employees of the respondent University, who were in service on 1.1.1992 or retired after 1.1.1992, were given an opportunity to change their option from CPF to Pension Scheme. Vide his option dated 5.8.1993, the petitioner had opted to continue with the CPF Scheme. Subsequently, the respondent - University, vide circular dated 10.4.1996 (Annexure P-3) gave another opportunity to its employees to change their option from CPF to Pension Scheme. At that time, the petitioner was not in service as he had already LPA No.221 of 2010 3 been removed from service. Therefore, he could not opt for the same. Some employees, who had earlier opted for the CPF, had changed their option to Pension Scheme. Again, vide notification/circular dated 26.2.1999/18.4.2001, the respondent - University sought option from its employees to the same effect. During the aforesaid period also, the petitioner was not in service and he could not opt for the Pension Scheme. Immediately after his re-instatement on 23.3.2006, the petitioner submitted an application on 12.4.2006 (Annexure P-6) for change of his option from CPF to Pension Scheme. Respondent No.2, vide order dated 6.5.2006 (Annexure P-7), rejected the prayer of the petitioner for change of option. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing CWP No. 16418 of 2006. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner had retired from service on 30.11.2008, on attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, vide order dated 1.12.2008 (Annexure P-12), the said petition was disposed of by this Court with liberty to the petitioner to make a detailed representation to the respondents and the respondents were directed to consider that representation by passing a speaking order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the representation. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted representation dated 5.12.2008 (Annexure P-13), which was rejected by respondent No.2 vide order dated 3.1.2009 (Annexure P-14), on the ground that since the petitioner could not opt for change of option in time, when the opportunity was granted, therefore, now at this stage, he cannot be permitted to change the option. Hence, the writ petition was filed impugning the aforesaid order dated 3.1.2009. The writ petition was allowed by learned Single Judge with costs and the impugned order dated 3.1.2009 (Annexure P-14) was set LPA No.221 of 2010 4 aside. The respondents were directed to accept the prayer of the petitioner for change of option from CPF to Pension Scheme and to release the pensionary benefits, in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge, present appeal has been filed. 4. Learned Single Judge in the judgement dated 4.11.2009 observed as under:- “After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed. It is the admitted position that from 30.9.1994 to 21.3.2006, the petitioner remained out of job. The Civl Court has set aside the order of his removal being illegal and void ab initio, and he was ordered to be re-instated in service with full back wages. In pursuance of the judgment and decree of the Civil Court, the petitioner was re-instated in service. During the time, the petitioner was out of job, three circulars were issued by the respondent University, providing fresh opportunities to its employees to change their option from CPF to Pension Scheme. Concededly, two of the employees have availed the said opportunities and changed their option from CPF to Pension Scheme. The petitioner, being not in service at that time, was not in a position to avail those three opportunities. He was not at fault. It is because of his illegal removal by the respondents that he could not avail those opportunities. For that illegal act of the respondent University, the petitioner cannot be penalised and the respondents cannot be permitted to say that the petitioner did not avail the opportunity to change his option LPA No.221 of 2010 5 under the aforesaid three circulars. It is a fact that within one month of his re-instatement, the petitioner made representation to the respondent University, praying for change of his option from CPF to Pension Scheme.” 5. Learned counsel for the appellant is not able to point out any illegality or wrong in the impugned judgement. Undisputedly, the petitioner was out of job from 30.9.1994 to 21.3.2006 and was reinstated after the civil Court set aside the order of his removal being illegal and void ab initio. Had he been in job, he would have availed the opportunity granted by the University to change his option from CPF to Pension Scheme. Undisputedly, within a month of his reinstatement, the petitioner made representation to the respondent – University praying for change of option from CPF to pension scheme. 6. In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeal. However, we are of the view that costs of Rs.10,000/- awarded by learned Single Judge seems to be unjustified. Accordingly, we hold that the petitioner is not entitled to any costs. 7. With the above said modification, the appeal stands dismissed in limine. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 22.02.2010 sk.