CWP No.4680 of 2006 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.4680 of 2006 Date of Decision:.10.08.2010 Kirpal Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents 1. Whether Reporter of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment- Yes. 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not- Yes. 3. Whether judgment should be reported in the digest-Yes. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Additional AG, Haryana. ..... Alok Singh, J. (Oral) 1. Petitoner is assailing order dated 27.12.2005 (Annexure- P14) whereby General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Yamunanagar has denied the pension to the petitioner on the ground that that the petitioner remained out of Government service w.e.f. 06.11.1981 to 11.06.1996. 2. The brief facts of the present petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Conductor in Haryana Roadways Depot vide appointment letter dated 27.05.1967. The petitioner was removed from the service vide order dated 6.11.1981. However, on the reference being made by the petitioner, learned Labour Court passed an award on 16.05.1996 in favour of the petitioner directing to CWP No.4680 of 2006 2 reinstate the petitioner on post but without any back wages. Learned Labour Court held removal of the petitioner illegal and unjustified. Pursuant to the award once again he joined the service on 12.06.1996. The petitioner after attaining age of superannuation stood retired from the Government service on 31.05.2004. 3. The sole question before this Court is as to whether pensionary benefits can be denied to the petitioner merely because the petitioner remained out from the service because of order of removal which was later on quashed by the Labour Court. 4. Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vishal Malik, Advocate appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Raghunath Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and another 2002 (4) SCT 505 and argued that denied of the pension to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner remained out from the service because of removal order passed against him is not justified. Removal order was found illegal and petitioner was reinstated on the post with all benefits without any back wages. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that the petitioner was reinstated on the post and his removal was found to be illegal hence period when he remained out from the service shall be counted for the purpose of the pension. Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Raghunath (Supra) in paragraph No.11 has held as under:- “1. A perusal of the labour Court order annexure P/1 clearly indicates that removal of the petitioner was held to be illegal and he was directed to be reinstated. It is not at all the case of the employer that the employee was offered fresh employment in view of the compromise between the parties. It was clearly a case where reinstatement ipso CWP No.4680 of 2006 3 facto was directed which was accepted by the employer. The word reinstatement itself carries that past services have to be counted as continuous service. The employer on the basis of the compromise could not take a view that the petitioner did not render ten years continuous service for the benefits he sought for. The legal position is clear and the compromise in no manner even suggests that the past services rendered by the petitioner were to be forfeited or not to be treated as continuous service. There is no mention in the compromise with respect to the pensionary benefits. It cannot be said that the petitioner waived his past service by entering into compromise with the employer. Merely because he confined his claim to the back wages to the extent of Rs.10,000/-, it cannot be said that the petitioner had forfeited his right in any manner whatsoever to forego his past services which he had rendered from the year 1959 till the date of his reinstatement.” 5. In the opinion of this Court the pensionary benefits cannot be refused to the Government servant only because he remained out of service because of dismissal/termination/removal order passed against him specially when that dismissal/termination/removal order was set aside by the competent Court holding removal order as illegal. In the present matter also petitioner was directed to be reinstated vide order dated 16.05.1996. Hence, the intervening period in which the petitioner did not work, shall be counted for the purpose of pension. Consequently, writ petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside. Respondents are directed to calculate the pensionary benefits of the CWP No.4680 of 2006 4 petitioner and release entire amount along with 6% per annum interest within two months from today. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE 10.08.2010 sharmila