IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 9614 of 1987 Date of Decision: April 1, 2009 K.L. Garg and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Advocate Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for the respondents. 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? M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of this group of four petitions2 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution as the relief claimed by the petitioners is similar. However, the facts are being referred from C.W.P. No. 9614 of 1987. The prayer made by the petitioners in this petition is for quashing notification dated 30.9.1987 (P-6) and letter dated 13.10.1987 (P-7). According to the notification dated 30.9.1987, the petitioners, who are employees of the Public Health CWP No. 9614 of 1987 Department, were allocated to the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board (for brevity, ‘the Board’) on permanent basis with immediate effect under the provisions of Section 29 of the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1976 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). The names of the various persons including the petitioners figured in the list attached with the notification dated 30.9.1987. On 13.10.1987, the respondent State has passed an order terminating the lien of the petitioners from the Department of Public Works (Public Health Branch) with effect from 30.9.1987. The petitioners were asked to exercise their options for absorption in the Board. The petitioners have exercised option by filling Form-A, but without surrendering their rights with regard to their status. When the matter came up for consideration of this Court on 17.12.1987, the termination of the lien of the petitioners was stayed till further orders. Eventually the writ petition was admitted alongwith interim direction on 14.9.1988. In the written statement by respondent No. 2 i.e. Department of Public Health, the broad factual position that the petitioners were working as Executive Engineers before sending them on deputation to the Board, has not been denied. However, it has been submitted in para 4 on merits that as a result of enactment of the Act, the Public Health Department was bifurcated and certain posts of the Public Health Department were transferred to the Board w.e.f. 1.1.1977 as declared by the Government by Section 29 of the Act. it has further been asserted that the field staff of two circles of Public 2 CWP No. 9614 of 1987 Health Department alongwith the wing of Head Office dealing with local bodies works at that time were sent to the Board pending final allocation of employees of the Public Health Department transferred as per the provisions of the Act. The Chief Engineer dealing with Local Bodies Works in Public Health Department was taken as Managing Member in the Board. In para 18 it has been asserted that the petitioner have no right to retain their lien in the Department of Public Health once their lien has been terminated on their permanent absorption in pursuance to notification dated 30.9.1987 and consequential order of termination of lien passed on 13.10.1987 w.e.f. 30.9.1987. Reply on behalf of respondent No. 3 has also been filed where similar stand has been taken. However, in para 13 of the written statement action of allocating the posts as they existed on 1.1.1977 has been defended by attaching the list of allocated employees as Annexure R-3/2. It has further been asserted that in view of the stay of termination of lien of allocated employees in Public Health Department, the case of pensionary benefits was to be finalised by the Public Health Department and in that regard reliance has been placed on the order dated 29.9.1993 issued by respondent No. 2 (R-3/3). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance perused the record. When the matter came up for consideration on 12.3.2003, following order was passed by this Court:- 3 CWP No. 9614 of 1987 “ On the last date of hearing, learned State counsel has taken time to enable him to seek instructions as to whether the respondent-department is agreeable to grant retrial benefits to the petitioners in accordance with the rules prevailing in the Punjab Public Health Department because the retiral benefits have been given to number of petitioners who have already retired. When the case came up for hearing today, learned State counsel indicated on instructions that the department is inclined to contest the case. However, nothing has been pointed out as to why the retiral benefits have been given to those petitioners who have retired during the pendency of the petition. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to file an additional affidavit stating the reasons for granting retiral benefits to those petitioners who have retired during the pendency of the petition. Let the needful be done within a week with an advance copy to the counsel opposite. Case to come up for hearing on 26.3.2003. A copy of this order attested by the Bench Secretary of this Court be given to the learned State counsel for onward transmission to the quarter concerned.” In pursuance to the aforesaid direction, an affidavit dated 25.4.2003 on behalf of respondent No. 2 was filed by Shri Prem Dass, 4 CWP No. 9614 of 1987 Deputy Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Public Health, wherein in paras 3 and 4 it has been stated as under:- “3. That during the pendency of the C.W.P. many employees retired after attaining the age of Superannuation. The matter was taken up with the Finance Department. English version of the advice of the Department of Finance conveyed vide their No. 9/47/92-4FB-III-1796, dated 21.09.1993 reads, as under:- “The Administrative Department is advised to finalise the pension cases of all employees allocated to the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board at its own level till the matter of their lien is finally decided by the Hon’ble court. After the final decision of their lien, the cases of such employees may be decided in terms of rule 5.3(2) and 5.3(3) of Punjab Civil Services Regulation Part-II and relevant rules of the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board”. 4. That pension and pensionary benefits have been granted to the petitioners as well as non petitioners who have retired during the pendency of the writ petition(s) before Hon’ble Court since there was a stay order against the termination of lien of the 5 CWP No. 9614 of 1987 Petitioners in CWP 9614 of 1987 reproduced in Para 1 above. Other employees retiring during the same period were also given similar benefits to maintain uniformity as envisaged in the advice of Finance Department reproduced above.” Once the pension and pensionary benefits stand granted to the petitioners by treating them as employees of the Public Works Department, as has been stated in the affidavit of Shri Prem Dass, Deputy Secretary, nothing would survive for determination in the present petitions. Accordingly, the writ petitions are rendered infructuous and the same are disposed of as such. (M.M. KUMAR) April 1, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 6 2 1. CWP No. 9614 of 1987 (K.L. Garg and others v. State of Punjab and others). 2. CWP No. 9347 of 1988 (Prem Kumar Verma and others v. State of Punjab and others). 3. CWP No. 12807 of 1990 (Rakesh Gupta and others v. State of Punjab and others). 4. CWP No. 1650 of 1991 (G.S. Oberoi and another v. State of Punjab and others).