C.W.P. No.8422 of 2004 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.8422 of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision:20.01.2010 Om Prakash Garg ....Petitioner Versus Union of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi through its Secretary and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Surender Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for UOI. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. To a claim of the petitioner for release of pensionary benefits by counting the period of service that he had rendered with the Union of India, the contention on behalf of the Electricity Board, is that as regards the period of service that the petitioner had till he retired, the pension liability by way of contribution comes to Rs.2,40,370/-, out of which, the MES Department had already sent a contribution of Rs.25,045/- and the balance of share of contribution of liability amounting to Rs.2,15,325/- has not been forthcoming from the 2nd respondent and as and when the amount is paid, the matter for counting the C.W.P. No.8422 of 2004 (O&M) -2- previous service towards pension of the petitioner would also be considered. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on a Division Bench judgment of this Hon'ble Court in LPA No.115 of 2006. In the said judgment, the Division Bench has raised the very same question whether the period of service in the Government of India or Government of Punjab could be counted for the purpose of determining the pension and other retiral benefits of a person, who retired from PSEB and addressing the issue relating to the contributions of the respective employers, the Court held as follows:- “We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made at the Bar. It is true that in the case of C.L. Malhotra Vs. State of Punjab and others and Harbans Singh Kohli Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, a direction was issued by this Court to the Government of India to determine and release, in favour of the State Electricity Board, within three months the amount of its liability towards pension payable to the employees, whereupon the Punjab State Electricity Board was required to release the benefits to the employees. But keeping in view the fact that any such direction is likely to cause avoidable delay in the release of the pension in favour of the employees, we C.W.P. No.8422 of 2004 (O&M) -3- see no compelling reason why we should make the release of the pensions to the employees dependent upon whether the Punjab State Electricity Board receives or does not receive the contribution from the Government of India. It is no doubt true that in terms of the scheme, which has been formulated by the Punjab State Electricity Board and the Government of India, the Government of India is liable to make the contribution, but so long as there is a provision for payment of such contribution, the Punjab State Electricity Board should have no difficulty in recovering the same from the Government of India. The payment of pension to the employees could, in that view of the matter, be directed to be made straight-way with a further direction to the Government of India to pay within the time specified for the purpose its contribution towards the proportionate pension for the period the employee had served its establishment. In the totality of the above circumstances, therefore, we dispose of L.P.A. no.115 of 2006 with a direction that the appellant-Punjab State Electricity Board would release, in favour of the respondent employees, pension due to them after counting the period for which they have worked with the C.W.P. No.8422 of 2004 (O&M) -4- Government of India, shall within a period of two months from today. We further direct that the Government of India, within six months from today, release in favour of the Punjab State Electricity Board the proportionate liability towards pension and their retiral benefits in terms of the scheme on the subject. We leave it open to the Punjab State Electricity Board to seek appropriate redress in this Court or in any other Court of competent jurisdiction for the enforcement of this direction in case the Government of India does not reimburse the proportionate liability towards pension and other benefits.” 3. The Division Bench has held that the Electricity Board itself would make the contribution and has directed the Government of India to release the amount in favour of the Electricity Board the proportionate liability towards pension in terms of the Scheme of the transfer. By leaving it open to the Electricity Board to seek appropriate redress in this Court or any other Court for enforcement of the direction relating to the contribution of the Government of India, if it did not reimburse the proportionate liability, the Division Bench enabled an employee of the Electricity Board to claim pension counting the period of service also in the Union. 4. In terms of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court, it is C.W.P. No.8422 of 2004 (O&M) -5- directed that the respondents No.2 and 3 shall make the contribution pay the pension by counting the period of service that the petitioner held in the Union also within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. The 1st respondent shall release the amount, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order in favour of the Electricity Board of the proportionate liability towards pension and other retiral benefits. 5. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 20, 2010 Pankaj*