CWP No. 506 of 2008. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 506 of 2008. [O&M] Date of Decision: 22nd March, 2010. Ish Kumar Arya Petitioner through Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Anr. Respondents through Mr. B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner seeks a Mandamus to direct the respondents to count the entire service rendered by him towards qualifying service for pensionary purposes. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant in the Punjab Film and News Corporation [for short 'the Corporation'] which was a Punjab Government undertaking, vide appointment letter dated 17.9.1973 [Annexure P-1]. He was later on promoted as Divisional Field Officer vide order dated 26.4.1975 [Annexure P-2]. Due to poor fiscal health of the Corporation, the Government of Punjab decided to wind-up the same and absorb its employees in various Government Departments. Pursuant to the said decision, the petitioner was also absorbed as Assistant District Transport Officer in the Transport Department, Government of Punjab, though after a long legal battle. The petitioner has thereafter retired from the Government Service on CWP No. 506 of 2008. ::-2-:: attaining the age of super-annuation on 30.9.2004. The petitioner has been granted retiral benefits only by counting the qualifying service from the date of absorption. He now seeks a direction for inclusion of the service rendered by him in the Corporation towards the qualifying service. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit defending their action on the strength of Memo dated 12.9.1994 [Annexure R-1] whereby the petitioner, at the time of his appointment as Assistant District Transport Officer, was informed that “the appointment shall be a fresh one from all aspects except that your pay shall be protected to the extent possible and in this context matter shall be taken up separately with the Finance Department” and that “your service rendered in the Corporation shall not be counted for any purpose except [a] above in the State Government”. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the record. During the course of hearing, it could not indeed be disputed that identical controversy came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 9251 of 2002 [Subhash Chander Chadha & Ors. V State of Punjab & Ors.] which was allowed on 15.09.2005 which was further upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 44 of 2006 preferred by the State of Punjab. While dismissing the LPA vide judgment dated 24.3.2009, the Division Bench has dealt with similar contentions raised on behalf of the respondents, namely, the conditions imposed at the time of absorption of the surplus employees and repelled the same holding that:- CWP No. 506 of 2008. ::-3-:: “We are of the view that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge do not provide any exception to accept the appeal. Accordingly, we agree that the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner could not be treated to have joined the Government Service after absorption as a fresh recruit because for fresh recruitment the maximum age was 35 years whereas the petitioner-respondent was 48 years. There is nothing on record to show that for making fresh recruitment the criteria of age was relaxed. Therefore, the learned Single Judge is correct in his conclusion that the petitioner- respondent was absorbed instead of making appointment afresh. The view of the learned Single Judge that the petitioner was directed to exercise option after the decision taken in meeting dated 6.2.1992 (Annexure P-3) and circular issued on 12.2.1992 by Managing Director of PUNTEX (Annexure P-4). Accordingly, he exercised his option for absorption on 14.2.1992 (Annexure P-5) and was issued appointment letter on 19.1.1993 (Annexure P-6). In the aforesaid situation, the respondent-appellant cannot take a summer sault and put the rights of the petitioner-respondent in a quandary”. It is not in dispute that Special Leave Petition preferred against the aforementioned decision has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. For the reasons assigned by the Division Bench in Subhash Chander Chadha's case [supra], the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to revise the petitioner's pensionary benefits after taking into consideration the service rendered by him in the Corporation w.e.f. 17.9.1973 till he was absorbed in the Government Service. The arrears of pension shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. The petitioner, however, shall CWP No. 506 of 2008. ::-4-:: deposit the employee's share of Contributory Provident Fund along with interest within a period of two months from the date the said amount is calculated by the respondents and conveyed him. The respondents shall also be at liberty to adjust the said amount against the arrears of pension on an undertaking given to this effect by the petitioner. Dasti. March 22, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE