IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 1147 of 2010 Date of Decision : January 12, 2011 Smt. Santo Devi and others -----Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others ----Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. S.S. Pattar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The short question raised in this appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is whether 10 years or more than 10 years of regular service is adequate to qualify for pension. The learned Single Judge has rejected the claim made by the appellants by placing reliance on a Full Bench Judgment of this Court rendered in the case of State of Haryana v. Dr. (Mrs.) Sudha Seth ILR 2010 (2) Punjab and Haryana. The view of the learned Single Judge is discernible from the following para of the impugned order which reads as under: “Thus, in terms of the aforesaid Rule, a Government L.P.A. No. 1147 of 2010 -2- employee, who completes 20 years of qualifying service alone can seek voluntary retirement. Prior to completion of qualifying service of 20 years, an employee can seek termination of the relationship by resigning from the service. The question whether an employee is entitled to pension on completion of 10 years of service came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in State of Haryana V. Dr.(Mrs.) Sudha Seth (R.S.A. No.13 of 2009 decided on 18.9.2009). It was held therein that Rule 6.16(2) contemplates grant of pension only after completion of 25 years of qualifying service” 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and find that the reliance made by the learned Single Judge on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Dr. (Mrs.) Sudha Seth’s case (supra) is wholly misplaced. In fact, the claim made by the appellants is fully covered by the instructions dated 19.03.1981 (P-4) stipulating that on completion of 10 years or more than 10 years of service, an employee becomes entitled to pension. In the aforesaid instructions issued by the respondent –State of Haryana, it is not condition precedent that an employee must have rendered 20 years or more than 20 years of service. It would be appropriate to extract the relevant para of the instructions dated 19.03.1981, which reads as under: “On the recommendations of the Pay Commission, the L.P.A. No. 1147 of 2010 -3- State Government have revised the pay scales of its employees with effect from 1.4.1979. The recommendations of the Pay Commission in regard to pensionary benefits to the State employees as well as to the old pensioners had been engaging the attention of State Government for some time past. After careful consideration, it has been decided to revise the pensionary benefits as given below :- (1) Pension fixation formula and the scale of pension : At present, the minimum qualifying service for getting pension is 10 years and the maximum qualifying service is 33 years in case of Class I, II and III employes and 35 years in case of Class-IV employees. The pension is calculated at the rate of 1/80th of the average emoluments for each completed year of service, subject to a maximum of 1000/- per month.” A perusal of the instructions makes it patently clear that minimum qualifying service for becoming eligible for pension is 10 years and the maximum qualifying service is 33 years. Learned Single Judge has brushed aside the instructions by opining that the instructions are in conflict with Rules 5.32 (A) and 5.32(B) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (for brevity ‘the Rules) (as applicable to Haryana) and no instructions could be issued and enforced which are contrary to the Rules. However, the view of the learned Single Judge is not an accord with the principles of law governing issuance of instructions supplementing the Rules. It has come on record that the Rules have L.P.A. No. 1147 of 2010 -4- been available on the statute book much prior to issuance of instructions in 1981. In any case, the Rules themselves provide for grant of pension on completion of 10 years or more 10 years of service as would be shown in the following paras. 3. It would thus be necessary to study the Punjab Service Rules (as applicable to Haryana). Rule 6.16(2) of the Rules clearly postulate grant of pension on completion of 10 years service and the rule reads as under: “6.16(2). In the case of a Government employee retiring on or after the 1st April, 1979, in accordance with the provisions of these rules after completing qualifying service of not less than thirty-three years or more, the amount of superannuation, retiring, invalid and compassionate pensions shall be 50% of average emoluments as defined in rule 6.19C of these rules subject to a maximum of Rs. 3,000/- per mensem. However, in the case of a Government employee who at the time of retirement has rendered qualifying service of ten years or more but less than thirty-three years, the amount of pension shall be such proportion of the maximum admissible pension as such the qualifying service of thirty-three years, subject to a minimum of Rs. 375/- per L.P.A. No. 1147 of 2010 -5- mensem.” (Italics added) It is, thus, evident that the service rendered for a period of 10 years or more would be deemed to be sufficient to earn the pension by an employee. The Rule categorically provides that in case of a government employee who at the time of retirement has rendered qualifying 10 years or more service but less than 33 years, the amount of pension shall be in such proportion to maximum admissible pension as the qualifying service rendered by him bears to the maximum qualifying service of 33 years, subject to a minimum of Rs. 375 per mensem. 4. Moreover, there are precedents of this Court in which it has been held that 10 years or more than 10 years of service is sufficient for earning pension. In that regard reliance may be placed on two judgments of this Court rendered in the case of Ganga Bishan v. State of Haryana 1994(3) P.L.R. 691 and State of Punjab v. Gurkeerat Singh, 2002 (3) SCT 623. 5. The Full Bench judgment on which reliance has been placed by the learned Single Judge is wholly misplaced. The question before the Full Bench was entirely different as would be evident from perusal of the first para of the judgment. The Full Bench judgment has adjudicated the question ‘whether a government employee on resignation forfeits his past service for purposes of pensionary benefits’. The aforesaid Full Bench did not consider any question ‘whether on L.P.A. No. 1147 of 2010 -6- rendering of 10 years or more than 10 years of service, an employee becomes entitled to pension or not’. Therefore, reliance of the learned Single Judge on the Full Bench judgment in Dr. (Mrs.) Sudha Seth’s case (supra) is wholly misplaced. 6. For the reasons aforementioned, the judgment of the learned Single judge is set aside. The appellant-employees is held entitled to grant of pension who had admittedly rendered more than 10 years of service. Let the benefits of pension and other retrial dues be calculated and paid to appellants who are his legal representatives expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the receipt of copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same is allowed. ( M.M. KUMAR ) JUDGE ( T.P.S. MANN ) January 12, 2011 JUDGE Atul