C.W.P. No.9633 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.9633 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 20, 2009 Smt. Nirmala Devi .....PETITIONER Versus The State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.K.L. Dhingra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Sushma Chopra, Addl.A.G.,Haryana, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.Raman B.Garg, Advocate, for respondent No.4. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. Petitioner is a poor woman belonging to weaker section of the Society. From 7.8.1992 to 30.6.1996 she served as Sweeper on daily wages in Municipal Council, Thanesar. In terms of the regularisation policy of the State Government, which was adopted by the Municipal Council, the services of the petitioner were regularised as Sweeper vide order No.1439 dated 25.6.1996 (Annexure P1) w.e.f. 1.7.1996. Thereafter she served as regular employee till her retirement on 31.7.2004. After her retirement, she claimed her pensionary benefits in terms of Haryana Municipal Employees Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as `Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1993'), but the same were not C.W.P. No.9633 of 2008 -2- paid to her. The poor woman was running from pillar to post making prayer to one authority or the other. But, she was not heard. Ultimately she was compelled to approach this Court by filing the instant writ petition. In pursuance of the notice issued by this Court, a joint written statement has been filed by the Secretary, Municipal Council, Thanesar on behalf of all the respondents. In the written statement, it has been stated that the petitioner is not entitled for pensionary benefits because she has not completed ten years of regular service. According to the counsel for the respondents, the petitioner had completed only eight years one month of service from 1.7.1996 to 31.7.2004. Therefore, as per Rule 3.12 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.II, as applicable to the State of Haryana, she had not completed the minimum qualifying service for the grant of pension which is ten years. It has been stated that the service rendered by the petitioner as a daily wager was not to be counted as a qualifying service for the benefit of pension. It is a matter of concern that in spite of a clear decision by a Division Bench of this Court in Tirath Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 2003(1) RSJ 89, where it was held that the service rendered by an employee of Municipal Council on ad hoc basis or on work charge basis or on consolidated salary earlier to his regularisation is to be counted as service rendered by him towards the qualifying service in terms of the definition contained in Rule 3(h) of the Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1993. It was further held that the 1993 Rules have over-riding effect over the Punjab Civil Service Rules (as applicable in Haryana). According to the said Division Bench judgment, the petitioner is entitled for pension under C.W.P. No.9633 of 2008 -3- the aforesaid Rule. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Municipal Council as well as State have not disputed the aforesaid legal position. They could not explain why in the written statement again the same stand was taken which was earlier rejected by this Court. Both the counsel could not controvert the legal position as enumerated above and also could not give any reason for denying the benefit of pension to the petitioner. When the counsel could not explain the delay in granting the genuine relief to a poor citizen, counsel for the respondents were asked on the last date of hearing to intimate the Secretary of the Municipal Council and Director, Local Bodies to come present in Court. Today, they are present in Court, but could not satisfactorily explain why the rightful due of pension of the poor person, like the petitioner, has been withheld for a period of about five years. During the course of hearing, it was explained that the Municipal Council, Thanesar was not aware of the true legal position and a clarification was also sought, but no reply was given from the office of Directorate of Local Bodies. Be that as it may, I am of the opinion that because of the casual attitude of the officials of the Municipal Council and the Director, a poor woman has been deprived of her pension for a period of above five years, and has been compelled to approach this Court, particularly when this controversy was already set at rest by this Court in Tirath Singh's case (supra) before the retirement of the petitioner. In spite of that decision, the respondent-authorities slept over the matter during all these years. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed, subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- as costs, and a direction is issued to the respondents to grant the pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner by taking into C.W.P. No.9633 of 2008 -4- account the services rendered by the petitioner on daily wages w.e.f. 7.8.1992 to 30.6.1996 and on regular basis w.e.f. 1.7.1996 to 31.7.2004, as qualifying service, within a period of two months from the receipt of certified copy of the order along with interest @ 9%. It is made clear that the amount of costs, which is initially to be paid by the State, shall be got recovered from the officials of the Municipal Council, Thanesar and the Directorate of Local Bodies, whosoever has been found responsible by the Director, Local Bodies in adopting the delaying tactics. March 20, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE