CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14112 of 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 25, 2009 Subh Ram & others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Ms.Anu Chatrath Kapur, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners have filed this writ petition for quashing the order in not counting the service rendered by them in privately managed aided schools for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits before the school was taken over by the Government. The Haryana State has formulated pension scheme regulating the pension and contributory funds of the employees appointed in the aided schools of Haryana. In 2001, all employees, who were appointed on the aided sanctioned posts and were working thereon, have been held entitled to grant of pension. Sarvodya High CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14112 of 2008 :{ 2 }: School, Patli Station, Gurgaon, where the petitioners were working, was taken over w.e.f.1.5.1980 and thereafter the petitioners became employees of the Government. The pay being drawn by the petitioners was also protected. After retirement, the petitioners submitted their papers for grant of pension and they were accordingly granted pension for their service rendered in the school after it was taken over by the Government. The petitioners, however, were not given the benefit of service rendered by them when the school was privately managed but aided school. The pension has already been introduced in the said schools w.e.f. 11.5.1988. The counsel for the petitioners would contend that there is an apparent dichotomy as the petitioners would have been entitled to the benefit of pension for the entire service, which is now being denied to them, for their service in the school before it was taken over. They have accordingly filed this writ petition for directions to the respondents to count the service rendered by them in the privately managed aided schools before they were taken over and in support has relied upon number of decisions rendered by this court. The plea of the petitioners is opposed in a short reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is stated that the petitioners were treated as fresh appointees once the school was taken over and their seniority has been counted from the date of taking over of the school. The issue raised in the abovesaid writ petition already stands adjudicated by this court in number of decisions, including Civil Writ Petition No.16817 of 2007 (VijaySingh Vs. State of Haryana and others), decided on July 22, 2009. It may be noticed that the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14112 of 2008 :{ 3 }: State has taken a similar stand in response to a notice issued in the said writ petitions. Relying upon the ratio laid down in the cases of Harnandan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2007(2) RSJ 437 and Charan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2006(6) SLR 624, decided by two different Division Benches of this court and a case titled Union of India and others Vs. Jawahar Lal Sharma, 2003(3) RSJ 672, the Court has directed the respondents to count the entire service rendered by the petitioners in a privately managed school and in the Government School for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chander Sain Vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 972. In all these cases, the Court has held that the service rendered in the aided school was required to be counted for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits. The issues raised in the writ petitions are covered by the ratio of law laid down in the above said cases. A service rendered in a private school or an aided post, which is receiving grant in aid is also made pensionable and as such, the same is required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits. All the three writ petitions are accordingly allowed in the above terms. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. November 25, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE