-1- Civil Writ Petition No.1895 of 2003. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: May 23, 2008. Er.Manmohan Singh Kalsi ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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 ? Present: Mr. H.S. Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Dhillon, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. None for respondent No.3. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. The petitioner joined service under the Central Government, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on January 03, 1967, as Engineering Assistant. He was posted in the office of the Director, Doordarshan Kendra, Jalandhar (respondent No.3). While in the service of respondent No.3, in pursuance -2- Civil Writ Petition No.1895 of 2003. of advertisement published by the Punjab State Electricity Board- respondent No.2 (for short `the Board') the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Engineer, Class II. He applied through proper channel. The petitioner was selected for the post of Assistant Engineer under the Board. He retired from the service of the Board on October 31, 2002, after attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner rendered 9 years and 2 months service under the Central Government and 26 years and 9 months service under the Board. The claim of the petitioner is that the service rendered by him with respondent No.3 was pensionable in view of the instructions dated March 31, 1982 (Annexure P-2) issued by the Government of India. The Government of Punjab also extended the benefit of temporary service rendered under the Government of India and State Government towards pensionary benefits as per Circular dated May 20, 1982 (Annexure P-3). The Circular (Annexure P-3) was adopted by the Board vide Circular dated November 25, 1985 (Annexure P-4). Thereafter, the Punjab Government issued Notification dated February 26, 1990 (Annexure P-4A) notifying the Rules called the Punjab Financial (Ist Amendment) Rules, Volume -II, 1990 incorporating the procedure as to how pensionary benefits of employees who worked under two or more Governments will be counted and payment made to them. The Board adopted the Notification dated February 26, 1990 (Annexure P-4B) vide Circular dated November 28, 1990 (Annexure P-4A). -3- Civil Writ Petition No.1895 of 2003. The Board, vide its order dated May 21, 1993 (Annexure P-5) accepted the claim of the petitioner for counting his service from January 03, 1967 to February 04, 1976, rendered by him with respondent No.3. It was mentioned in Annexure P-5 that the Board shall bear the entire pensionary liability of the petitioner including gratuity at the time of his retirement. However, vide Circular dated November 25, 1993 (Annexure P-6), the earlier Circular dated November 28, 1990 (Annexure P-4B) adopting the Notification dated February 26, 1990 (Annexure P-4A) issued by the Punjab Government, was withdrawn by the Board. Thereafter, the Board withdrew the order dated May 21, 1993 (Annexure P-5) whereby his service under the Central Government was ordered to be counted towards pensionary benefits by passing the order dated June 07, 2001 (Annexure P-8). However, the pensionary benefits were released by the Board considering his qualifying service rendered in the Board only and his pension was not calculated by counting the service rendered by him with respondent No.3 as qualifying service for the payment of pensionary benefits. In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the Circular dated November 25, 1993 (Annexure P-6), issued by the Board whereby the earlier Circular dated November 28, 1990 ( Annexure P-6) adopting the Notification dated February 26, 1990 (Annexure P- 4A) issued by the Punjab Government, was withdrawn by the Board. -4- Civil Writ Petition No.1895 of 2003. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to count the service rendered by him with respondent No.3 as qualifying service for the payment of pensionary benefits. In the written statement filed by the Board, it has been admitted that the order dated May 21, 1993 (Annexure P-5) accepting the claim of the petitioner for counting his service from January 03, 1967 to February 04, 1976, rendered by him with respondent No.3 was passed by the Board, but later on this order was withdrawn. It has been further pleaded that the Board wrote letter dated March 07, 2003 (Annexure R-1) to respondent No.3 requesting the latter to send an amount of Rs.4,01,470/- towards pension/gratuity liability of the petitioner in respect of the service rendered by him with respondent No.3. However, respondent No.3 vide letter dated April 03, 2003 (Annexure R-2) informed the Board that respondent No.3 was not in a position to send this amount for the service rendered by the petitioner with it at that stage. In the written statement filed by respondent No.3, the calculations of the proportionate liability of respondent No.3 towards pensionary benefits of the petitioner, as sent by the Board vide its letter dated March 07, 2003 (Annexure R-1), have not been disputed, but it has been stated that respondent No.3 is under no obligation to share the liability. Nobody turned up on behalf of respondent No.3 at the time of hearing of this petition. -5- Civil Writ Petition No.1895 of 2003. We have heard Mr. H.S. Saini, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. B.S. Dhillon, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the cases of Er.Satwant Singh Sandhu v. The State of Punjab and others (Civil Writ Petition No.6134 of 2000 decided on August 23, 2001, and Er.Inderjit Singh Bajwa v. State of Punjab and others (Civil Writ Petition No.18855 of 2002 decided on February 22, 2007 and S.C. Kapuria v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, 2008 (1) Recent Services Judgments 261 and contended that the petitioner is entitled to count the service rendered by him with respondent No.3 from October 03, 1964 to October 19, 1970 as qualifying service for the payment of pensionary benefits. In the case of Er.Satwant Singh Sandhu (supra), where also the Board had first agreed to take into consideration the service rendered by the petitioner therein in a department of the Government of India as qualifying service, but lateron that benefit was revoked without informing the petitioner, as in the present case, it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that: “ The order dated 17.8.1999 having been passed without following the rules of natural justice is unsustainable in law being arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution -6- Civil Writ Petition No.1895 of 2003. of India. The impugned order dated August 17, 1999 is, therefore, liable to be set aside” Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.1406/2002 preferred against the judgment rendered in Er.Satwant Singh Sandhu (supra) was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on February 04, 2002. In Er.Inderjit Singh Bajwa's case (supra), the petitioner therein, who retired from the service of the Board, was held entitled to count his service rendered in the Central Government as qualifying service for the payment of pensionary benefits. Similarly, in S.C. Kapuria's case (supra), such benefit was extended to the petitioner therein who had retired from the service of the Board and before joining the Board had rendered 8 years and 2 months service in the Agriculture Department of the State of Punjab. In view of the foregoing discussion, this writ petition is allowed, the Circular dated November 25, 1993 (Annexure P- 6) is quashed and the petitioner is held entitled to the counting of his service rendered by him with respondent No.3 from January 03, 1967 to February 04, 1976 as qualifying service for the payment of pensionary benefits. As a result thereof, Respondent No.3 is directed to pay to respondent No.2 the pension contribution towards the service rendered by the petitioner with respondent No.3 i.e from January 03, 1967 to February 04, 1976 Further, the Board is directed to re- -7- Civil Writ Petition No.1895 of 2003. calculate/revise the pensionary benefits of the petitioner by considering his qualifying service rendered in the Board plus the service rendered with respondent No.3 towards pensionary benefits. The whole exercise be done by respondents Nos.2 and 3 within a period of two months i.e respondent No.3 will pay the amount of its contribution towards pensionary benefits of the petitioner, as calculated by the Board in its letter dated March 07, 2003 (Annexure R-1) written to respondent No.3 within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter the Board will release the revised pensionary benefits along with arrears thereof within one month. If the amount is not paid within the afore-stated period, the petitioner will be entitled to claim interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum. There shall be no order as to costs. ( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE May 23, 2008. ak