IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9572 of 2000 AND Civil Writ Petition No.12496 of 2001 Date of decision: 21st October, 2008 Arjan Dass … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pawan Malik, Advocate for Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. Vishal Munjal, DAG Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) By this common order, two petitions bearing CWP No. 9572 of 2000 and 12496 of 2001, preferred by the petitioner on the same facts, will be decided together. Civil Writ Petition No. 9572 of 2000 Present petition has been filed by Arjan Dass son of Rattan Lal, who was working as Octroi Clerk in Municipal Council, Ferozepur. Present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued and the impugned order dated 30th March, 2000 passed by the respondent No.5, i.e. Examiner, Local Fund Account, Local Govt. Department, be quashed and the respondents be directed to deposit the Pension Contributory Fund of the petitioner in the Pension Fund along with interest, from the date of his appointment till his reinstatement in service in the year 1994. Civil Writ Petition No. 9572 of 2000 & 12496 of 2001 Before this prayer of the petitioner can be considered, few necessary facts are required to be noticed. Petitioner was appointed as Octroi Clerk on 30th October, 1975 for a period of two months on 89 days basis. It is stated that on 3rd September, 1977, services of the petitioner were confirmed. However, his services were terminated on 9th December, 1977. Aggrieved against his termination, petitioner preferred Civil Writ Petition No.3625 of 1978 in this Court. The writ petition was dismissed by a Single Bench of this Court, which necessitated the petitioner to file Letters Patent Appeal No. 584 of 1984. The order passed by the Letters Patent Appeal Bench has been attached as Annexure P-1. A perusal of the same shows that LPA was accepted and petitioner was ordered to be reinstated into service. He was held entitled to ancillary benefits, i.e. seniority etc. but the back wages were denied to him. It was noticed by the Division Bench, while deciding the LPA, that petitioner had not pressed for back wages. After reinstatement, petitioner continued to discharge his duties. On 30th April, 2001, petitioner superannuated from service. The grievance made in the present petition is that as no provident fund was deducted, the matching provident fund was not contributed by the employer, therefore, from the date of termination in the year 1977 till the date of reinstatement i.e. 1994, no deductions have been made and no contributory provident fund has been reflected in the account of the petitioner. It is not disputed that while deciding the LPA, when the petitioner was re-instated, he was denied back wages. Contribution to the provident fund is to be made from the salary. Therefore, prayer of the petitioner that clock be put back and he is ready to pay his share of provident fund along with interest and the employer be directed to pay its share in the contributory provident fund, cannot be accepted, as the petitioner had not discharged his duties. Petitioner was deemed to have 2 Civil Writ Petition No. 9572 of 2000 & 12496 of 2001 been in service from the date of his termination but the benefit, which was contingent and dependent upon the salary, cannot be granted to the petitioner, as he had agreed and not pressed his prayer for back wages. Therefore, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. However, whatever the actual amount of provident fund has been contributed by the petitioner, the same be reimbursed to him within a period of three months from the receipt of certified copy of this order. Civil Writ Petition No. 12496 of 2001 Petitioner on the same facts, has filed second writ petition claiming release of retiral benefits in the shape of leave encashment and gratuity. The facts of the case have been noticed above. Petitioner has stated that as per the observations of LPA Bench, petitioner was not to be given the back wages. However, from the year 1977 when the petitioner was employed till the date of his superannuation in year 2001, he is entitled to gratuity, which is to be computed as per rules and regulations. I find merit in this prayer, as LPA Bench has specifically stated that petitioner will not be entitled to back wages, therefore he has been deemed to have been in service from the date of his appointment, i.e. the year 1977. Therefore, gratuity has to accrue to him and petitioner shall be also entitled to leave encashment of the earned leave, which petitioner has gathered during the course of his service. With these observations, present writ petition is disposed off. The amount, to which petitioner is found entitled to, shall be disbursed within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE October 21, 2008 rps 3