CW|P No.19638 of 2008 : 1 : In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision:14.01.2010 1.CW|P No.19638 of 2008 Raj Kumar (Retired Patwari) ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents 2. CWP No.8400 of 2009 Shiv Charan, Retired Patwari ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents 3.CWP No.8425 of 2009 Rameshwar Dass ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents 4.CWP No.10697 of 2009 Kitab Singh, Retired Patwari ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI CW|P No.19638 of 2008 : 2 : Present: Mr.Deepak Balyan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Rameshwar Malik, Addl.AG, Haryana. Mr.DK Khanna, Advocate. -- PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): All the petitioners in these cases were the employees of the Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation, a government owned corporation. The said corporation was wound up and the surplus employees were ordered to be absorbed in the revenue department of the government by a decision of the government vide circular letter dated 5.1.1990 to all the Deputy Commissioners in the State except four District mentioned therein. One of the stipulation for such absorption was that such employees will not be entitled to any seniority which shall be determined from the date of their joining in the revenue department. The petitioners were, admittedly, working as Patwaris in the erstwhile corporation and on account of the government decision, the petitioners were absorbed in the revenue department. The petitioners have now retired from the State of Haryana on attaining the age of superannuation. The pension case of the petitioners were forwarded to respondent No.4 through their respective offices who raised certain queries regarding the period of service rendered by the petitioners in the Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation. Some of such communications have been placed on record. The petitioners have filed this petition seeing a direction that the period of service rendered by the petitioners in the Haryana State CW|P No.19638 of 2008 : 3 : Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation before joining the Revenue Department, be also counted towards qualifying period for pension, gratuity, GPF etc. The respondents in their reply have, however, disputed the claim of the petitioners. It is stated that respondent No.5, Corporation was asked to deposit the CPF amount and the petitioners were also asked to deposit the gratuity etc. obtained from the Corporation. A perusal of the written statement shows that the claim asked for by the petitioners in this writ petition has not been denied at all. The petitioners in their writ petitions have specifically mentioned that they are ready and willing to deposit the amount of CPF etc. as per the requirement of law. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The issue raised in the writ petitions is no more res integra. A similar issue came up for consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Employees of the Octroi Branch of the Municipal Committee is to be counted for the purposes of grant ACP. On consideration of the issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and another Vs. Deepak Sood and others, (Civil Appeal No.4446 of 2008) decided on 15.07.2008, made the following observations:- “Therefore, in the series of judgments given by this Court the view has been CW|P No.19638 of 2008 : 4 : taken that in case of a transfer/absorption from one department to another or from public sector to State though the benefit of the seniority may be denied to the incumbent but not for any other benefits like pay fixation and for the pensionary benefits. Therefore, when the benefit of past service rendered in the parent department was given for fixation of pay and pensionary benefits, there is no reason why the past service should not be counted for grant of ACP Grade. Consequently, we are of the view that the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment and order is correct and there is no ground to interfere in this appeal. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed but with no order as to costs.” The aforesaid observations are squarely applicable to the facts of the present writ petitions. In view of the above, all these petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the period of service rendered by all the petitioners in the Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewell CW|P No.19638 of 2008 : 5 : Corporation for all intents and purposes except the seniority. However, the grant of pensionary benefits shall be subject to the deposit of CPF contribution, Gratuity etc. in accordance with rules by the petitioners to the respondents or in the alternative the amount equal to CPF contribution and other payable amount shall be deducted by the respondents from the pensionary/retiral benefits of the petitioners. The pensionary benefits of the petitioners be determined and paid within a period of four months in accordance with law from the date a copy of this order is made available to the competent authority. No costs. A copy of this order be placed on the connected files. 14.01.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO