In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.2789 of 2008 ..... Date of decision:19.9.2011 The Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board and others .....Appellants v. Ajaib Singh .....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 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? ...... Present: Mr. J.P.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. S.C. Arora, Advocate for the respondent. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. This is regular second appeal against the order of Additional District Judge, Muktsar vide which the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been upheld and the appeal filed by the appellants-Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as `the appellant-Board') has been dismissed. Respondent-Ajaib Singh (plaintiff in trial Court) filed suit for declaration and mandatory injunction on the ground that he retired from the R.S.A. No.2789 of 2008 [2] service of Border Security Force (for short - `BSF') w.e.f. 28.12.1981 and thereafter joined the appellant-Board on 25.10.1985 as Chowkidar. He was promoted to the post of Oil Cleaner on 8.4.1994 and was retired after putting in 13 years of service on 30.9.1998. At the time of retirement, he was drawing basic salary of `3,610/- per month. Thereafter, recommendations of Fourth Pay Commission were accepted by the appellant-Board and enhanced the salaries as well as allowances payable to the employees working with the appellant-Board applicable w.e.f. 1.1.1996. In view of these recommendations, the respondent-Ajaib Singh was entitled to the salary with basic pay of `3,610/- per month. The respondent was getting a pension of `1275/- in lieu of his previous service with BSF and the appellant-Board fixed his pension at the rate of `701/- per month, which has increased to `1310/- after recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission. It is case of the plaintiff-respondent that he was entitled to both the pensions i.e. his service rendered with the BSF as well as that of the appellant-Board. The claim of the respondent has been contested by the appellant-Board on the ground that the respondent was entitled to one pension and as he has been getting pension from the BSF he was entitled to the maximum pension of `1310/- per month after coming into force of the Fourth Pay Commission. It was further submitted that basic pension of the respondent was calculated and fixed at `701/- per month and he was getting basic pension of `1275/- per month from BSF and getting dearness allowance on both the pensions. In total he was getting basic pension of `1976/- which was more than minimum pension of `1310/- fixed by the Fourth Pay Commission and hence he was not entitled to two pensions. R.S.A. No.2789 of 2008 [3] Resultantly, his suit as well as appeal was liable to be dismissed. Both the Courts decided against the appellant-Board and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant-Board has referred to Ex.D.2 a circular issued by Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare dated 27.10.1997 and Clause 5.1 of this circular says:- “5.1. Where the consolidated pension/family pension in terms of paragraph 4 above works out to an amount less than Rs.1275/- the same shall be stepped upto Rs.1275/-. This will be regarded as pension/family pension with effect from 1.1.1996. In the case of pensioners, who are in receipt of more than one pension, the floor ceiling of Rs.1275/- will apply to the total of all pensions taken by them.” On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Ajaib Singh has rebutted the submissions of the appellant-Board on the ground that this circular was not at all applicable to the facts of the present case as circular (Ex.D.2) has become meaningless in view of the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission which were published in the year 1998 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. As the recommendations were later in time than the circular in question, the same was not applicable in this case. The substantial question of law framed in this case is whether the respondent is entitled for minimum pension of `1310/- from the appellant-Board only when he was already getting `1275/- per month from BSF or whether he is entitled to get both the pensions? The facts regarding retirement of the respondent from BSF R.S.A. No.2789 of 2008 [4] service in the year 1981 and from the appellant-Board in the year 1998 are not disputed. It is also not disputed that he is getting pension at the rate of `1275/- per month from his previous employer i.e. BSF. The Fourth Pay Commission has raised the minimum pension payable to an employee to `1310/- per month w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Now the question would be whether an employee will be entitled to get both the pensions if sum total of these pensions exceeds `1310/-. Learned counsel for the appellant-Board has laid much emphasis on circular (Ex.D.2). This circular seems to have been issued on 27.10.1997 i.e. prior to the publication of recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission. Further perusal of this circular shows that it is applicable to the pensioners/military personnel etc. I am of the considered opinion that the appellant-Board cannot take advantage of this circular to deny the pensionary benefits to its employees. The Punjab Civil Services Rules are applicable to the employees of the State of Punjab which are further accepted by the appellant-Board. Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume-II, Section III deals with Re-employment of the Military Pensioners. Rule 7.19 reads as under:- “7.19. The rules in Section II of this Chapter do no apply to a Military Officer, Departmental Officer, warrant Officer or Non- Commissioned Officer or Soldier, who is taken into or allowed to continue in Civil employment after he has been granted a pension under Military Rules. His pension for service in the Civil Department will not be affected by his military pension.” Simple reading of this rule will show that pension of en employee for service in civil Department will not be affected by his military pension. R.S.A. No.2789 of 2008 [5] Admittedly, Boarder Security Force is a paramilitary force. I am of the view that this rule will be applicable to the facts of the present case. The rule of equity and justice also demands that in case there is a conflict or contradiction between the Rules governing the pension, salary etc. rule giving benefit to the employees is to be given effect to. This is particularly so as the employees are working in a welfare State legislation and the benefits applicable to them cannot be denied on technicalities by adopting a wooden attitude. Resultantly, the appeal fails. The same is dismissed. The judgment and decree of both the Courts below are upheld. September 19, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*