CWP No. 3700 of 2007 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 3700 of 2007 Date of Decision: 5.5.2008 Chandi Ram ....Petitioner Versus Chaudhary Charan Singh, Haryana Agricultural University and others .....Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present: Shri Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri M.S. Jain, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Ms. Mamta Singhal Talwar, AAG, Haryana. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioner has sought to challenge the order dated 11.8.2006, whereby the past service rendered by the petitioner in the Department of Agriculture in the State of Haryana, has not been counted for the grant of pensionary benefits. The petitioner was appointed on regular basis as a Junior Scientific Assistant in Soil and Water Testing Laboratory, Department of Agriculture. The petitioner worked from 25.9.1974 to 12.6.1979. The petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Technician in the Department of Animal Nutrition in the respondent-University in terms of advertisement published on 8.10.1978. The petitioner was selected and joined the University on 13.6.1979 without any break. It is the case of the petitioner that he has not been CWP No. 3700 of 2007 (2) given any retiral benefits for his service rendered in the Department of Agriculture, except the payment of Rs.253/- on account of General Provident Fund, which was later transferred to the respondent-University in the Provident Fund Account of the petitioner. The petitioner has not received any other benefit from the State Government including gratuity, from the State Government. The pension Statute of the University provides for counting of past service of those employees, who have come from the State Government and joined the University, subject to the condition that whatever retiral benefits have been received by the employees from the State Government, the same shall be deposited with the University with interest. A copy of the communication for counting the past service subject to deposit of the amount received from the previous employer dated 6.9.1993, has been appended by the petitioner as Annexure P.1. Later on, another circular was issued on 26.2.1999 by the University by giving another chance to the employees to change their option from Contributory Provident Fund Scheme to Pension Scheme, by exercising option within four months. The petitioner exercised his option for Pension Scheme and thus, the petitioner claims that he is entitled to counting of his past service towards the pensionary benefits. The petitioner submitted representation to count his previous service, wherein an objection was raised that the contribution from the State Government qua the pensionary benefits for the service rendered by the petitioner with the State Government, has not been received as required by the University Statute. The State Government has agreed to deposit the amount of contribution vide communication dated 21.7.2006 (Annexure P.5), whereby it was written to the University Authorities to intimate the amount which is required to be deposited by the Office of Director Agriculture, Haryana. However, vide communication Annexure P.6, the request of the petitioner for counting CWP No. 3700 of 2007 (3) of the past service was declined for the reason that the petitioner had not applied for benefit of the past service within the stipulated period of four month, as required vide circular dated 26.2.1999. In terms of Instructions dated 7.1.2002 issued by the State of Haryana, the petitioner applied for counting of his past service for the purposes of pension. Since no decision was taken in terms of the subsequent decision of the State Government, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for counting of past service for the purposes of pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner after his superannuation on 30.9.2007. In reply, it has been pointed out that the Pension Scheme was circulated on 6.9.1993. Para No. 3 of the said circular indicates that where no terminal benefits for the previous service have been received by such employees, the previous service in such case shall be counted for pension only if the previous employee accepts the pensionary liability for the service rendered in that Department/Organisation. It is further pointed out that in terms of Circular dated 26.2.1999, the petitioner opted for Pension Scheme on 22.4.1999 as the faculty members/employees, who wanted to change the option and wished to count their past service for pension, were required to apply within the stipulated date as per the Instructions dated 6.9.1993 followed by Memo dated 23.8.1994. The petitioner applied for counting of past service on 12.9.2000 i.e. after stipulated date on 25.6.1999. It has been further pointed out that neither the petitioner sought counting of his past service nor the petitioner is entitled to pension because he has not exercised the option at the time of introduction of Pension Scheme vide circular dated 6.9.1993. It is further pointed out that though the petitioner changed his option from CPF to the Pension Scheme, in response to the University memo dated CWP No. 3700 of 2007 (4) 26.2.1999, but the petitioner did not apply for counting of his past service for pension upto 25.6.1999. Still further, the petitioner made a representation on 12.9.2000 much after the stipulated date. In a separate reply filed on behalf of the Directorate of Agriculture, it has been pointed out that if the past service of the employee is to be counted towards the pensionary benefits, then respondent No.3 has to deposit the amount of pensionary liability of the petitioner in accordance with law. It has further been stated that as per the provisions of Rules, pensionary liabiltiy is to be deposited by the said respondent on demand if the period is counted for pensionary benefits. It is further stated that in case any proposal is received from respondent Nos. 1 and 2, respondent No.3, shall consider the same, as per the Rules. Somewhat similar question came up for consideration of this Court in CWP No. 2027 of 2006- Dr. T.S. Kathpal and others v. Ch. Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural Unviersity, decided on 8.4.2008, in respect of the members of teaching faculty. In the said case, the Board of Management in its 224 meeting held on 28.2.2008, has relaxed the condition of applying within four months for counting of past service for the purpose of pension on deposit of the benefits received by the members of the teaching faculty along with interest thereon. Keeping in view the decision of the Board of Management in respect of the Members of the teaching faculty, the petitioner is also entitled to the same benefits, as have been granted by the Board of Management to the members of the teaching faculty. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has opted for Pension Scheme on 22.4.1999 i.e. within the time granted. However, it is pointed out that the petitioner has not sought the counting of past service. The matter of counting of past service has been considered by the Board of Management and CWP No. 3700 of 2007 (5) relaxation granted to a number of employees including the petitioners in Dr. T.S. Kathpal's case (supra). Therefore, the respondents cannot be permitted to treat the petitioner differently than the other members of the teaching faculty. In view of the above, we allow the present writ petition; direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to count the previous service rendered by the petitioner in the Directorate of Agriculture and pay such revised notional pension including arrears thereon after the contribution is received by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from respondent No.3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall seek contribution of respondent No.3 in respect of pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner in accordance with Rules, as stated by the said respondent in the reply. Respondent No.3 shall send its contribution within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and if necessary respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall communicate the amount due and payable to respondent No.3 within a period of one month of the date of the receipt of the copy of the order so that the amount is actually disbursed by respondent No.3 within a period of two months of the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. On receipt of the contribution from respondent No.3, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall release the pensionary benefits and arrears thereof within one month thereafter. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (MOHINDER PAL) JUDGE 05.05.2008 ds