IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 3072 of 2004 Date of Decision: 6.5.2011. Javed Massey --Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Ms. J.J. Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Reeta Kohli, Addl. A.G., Punjab. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner was appointed on 25.6.1970 as Technician (Textile) in the Textile Design Centre by Director of Industries, Punjab, Chandigarh. Thereafter, petitioner's services along with other technicians were transferred to Punjab State Handloom & Textile Development Corporation (PUNTEX) vide order dated 29.5.1984. The object for transfer of such employees from the Govt. departments to the Corporation is indicated in the transfer order itself which reads as under:- “ With a view to bring about integrated development of Textile and Handloom Goods Industry of the State and to avoid duplication of efforts, multiplicity of staff and for better coordination, the Govt. have decided to transfer all the activities of the Department of Industries relating to Textile/Handloom Centres mentioned in the enclosed list to the Punjab State Handloom & Textile Corporation. 3. As far as service under the Corporation is concerned your pay will remain protected. The employees so transferred will constitute as separate cadre in the corporation and their inter-se seniority as at present, will not be disturbed. 4. These employees seeking pensionary benefits admissible under the rules of the Govt. will be extended the benefit of re-employment in CWP. No. 3072 of 2004 -2- the Corporation according to the terms and conditions governing such re- employment.” The petitioner continued to serve in the above mentioned Corporation. However, the Corporation came to be wound up and its employees were declared as surplus. It is specific case of the petitioner that the Corporation was established and was wholly owned and controlled by the State. At the time of winding up of the Corporation the petitioner was in the pay scale of Rs.1300-2400/- drawing an amount of Rs.1640/- as monthly salary. On winding up of Corporation it was decided to re-deploy the surplus staff of the Corporation in the meeting held on 28.1.1992. The meeting was duly attended by four I.A.S Officers consisting of Principal Secretary, Industries, Principal Secretary, Finance, Secretary, Department of Personnel and General Administration etc. On the basis of the decision taken by the Govt. all 198 employees of PUNTEX were declared surplus and ordered to be adjusted in various Govt. departments. Option was sought from the employees for such adjustment in Govt. departments. While seeking option, one of the condition imposed was that they will not be paid any retrenchment benefit and seniority in service, though, their pay would be protected. The letter of the Finance Department seeking option from the petitioner is reproduced hereunder:- “ In case you are willing to accept alternative job/employment in order Govt. Departments/Corporation on the condition that you will not claim any 'Retrenchment Benefits' and seniority in service, you may give your option within a period of one month from the date of issue of this letter. This is also made clear that though the job/employment so offered may be of equal or lower status, but your pay would be protected. You may also note that in case your option is not received within specified period, you will not be considered for absorption/employment in other Govt. Department/Corporation.” CWP. No. 3072 of 2004 -3- The petitioner had rendered 22 years of service at the time of winding up of Corporation and joined the police department under the decision of the Govt. as a Clerk on 16.9.1992 by exercising the option in terms of the aforesaid letter. Despite a condition in the option letter, pay of the petitioner was not protected. Petitioner filed CWP No.11335 of 1999 which came to be allowed. It seems that the matter was ultimately considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and on the basis of the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court pay of the petitioner and similarly situated employees was protected. Petitioner retired from service. While in service the petitioner represented for counting the service rendered in the Corporation towards the qualifying service for purposes of pension. This representation of the petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 23.6.2003. The only ground for rejection of the plea of the petitioner is the Govt. Instructions dated 8.5.2002 issued by the Punjab Govt. A copy of these instructions has also been placed on record as Annexure R-1. From the perusal of this document which is a circular issued to all the Head of Departments etc., it has been notified that surplus employees of the Corporation will be entitled to pay protection. It is further mentioned that the service rendered in the Corporation will not be reckoned for any purpose. It is on account of these Govt. Instructions that the petitioner has been denied the benefit of the service rendered in the Corporation for purposes of pensionary benefits. It is relevant to note that when the staff of the Corporation on winding up was declared surplus, the Govt. itself decided to absorb them in the Govt. departments and an offer was made to them. The offer dated 31.1.1992 has been reproduced herein above. In the offer letter the only CWP. No. 3072 of 2004 -4- condition made was non-payment of retrenchment benefit and seniority. There was no condition that their past service shall not be counted for pensionary benefits. It is also pertinent to note that petitioner and similarly situated other employees were initially appointed in Govt. service and thereafter their services were transferred to the Corporation and on winding up of the Corporation, they were again absorbed in the Govt. departments. Under such circumstances when the petitioner had hardly any choice, the stand of the Govt. not to annex his services for the purpose of pensionary benefits is totally arbitrary and illegal. This issue has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court, wherein a similar condition was imposed when the employees of a defunct Corporation were absorbed in the Govt. departments. A Division Bench of this Court while deciding CWP No.17343 of 2007 on 28.11.2008, on consideration of the similar question and relying upon an earlier judgement of this Court passed in CWP No. 1971 of 2000, held as under:- “ We are not persuaded to take any different view from how the matter has been dealt with earlier in CWP No. 1971 of 2000 placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner's claim is well founded and the writ petition is allowed with the direction that the services of the petitioner with respondent no.4 namely, Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewells Corporation Ltd. shall be counted for computation of retiral benefits of pension etc. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.” In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside and respondents are directed to count the service rendered by the petitioner in PUNTEX Corporation for purposes of pensionary benefits. CWP. No. 3072 of 2004 -5- Let the pensionary benefits be re-determined and re-fixed. Admissible amount, if, any be released to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 6.5.2011. lucky