IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 14830 of 2001 Date of decision: 1st December, 2008 Niranjan Singh … Petitioner Versus Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sharawn Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Agnihotri, Advocate for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present writ petition has been filed by Niranjan Singh. He is aggrieved against the impugned order (Annexure P-2 and P-3) passed by the respondent University. A perusal of Annexure P-2 and P-3 shows that Punjab Agricultural University has issued instructions to the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India that due to change of pensionary benefits, pension be given after making adjustments and vide Annexure P- 3, it was ordered that the pension, which is being received by the petitioner from the Defence Department for rendering military service, be deducted from the pension, to which petitioner was entitled for rendering service in the Punjab Agricultural University. Petitioner joined Indian Army on 15th September, 1941. He was working as a Platoon Havaldar and retired from military on 11th May, 1956 after having rendered 15 year’s service. Thereafter, he joined as Driver in Soil Department of Punjab Government on 18th March, 1957. Thereafter, his services were taken by the Punjab Agricultural University on Civil Writ Petition No. 14830 of 2001 20th December, 1962. He retired from Punjab Agricultural University as a Driver on 13th January, 1986. He was given one year extension in service upto 31st January, 1987. Petitioner is aggrieved against the action of the respondent, whereby the University deducted pension received by him from military service, out of the pension which was being disbursed to petitioner by the University. Notice of motion was issued. University has filed reply. It has been stated in para 6 as under: “6. That reply to para 6, it is submitted that pension payable by PAU was rightly calculated. Out of this amount, the pension which petitioner had been receiving from Defence Department was deducted in accordance with the provisions of clause 8.8 of the Pension Statutes and Rule 7.23 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II. The petitioner retired as Driver from the Punjab Agricultural University on 31/1/1986 but was re employed upto 31/1/1987. The pension @ Rs.764.16-375 = 389.16 or say Rs.390/- was paid to the Petitioner, keeping in view the provisions of Clause 8.8 of the Pension Statutes and rule 7.23 of Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol. II. The pension was calculated on the basis of 66 half years, i.e. :- In PAU (Service) 20/12/62 to 31/1/86 Total service: 28 years 10 months 14 days Or 58 half years. Average emoluments for pension under clause 1.5 (iv):- 1/4/85 to 30/4/85 Rs.1466.30 1/5/85 to 31/7/85 at Rs.1485.40 Rs.4456.20 1/8/85 to 31/10/85 at Rs.1504.50 RS.4513.50 1/11/85 to 31/12/85 at Rs.1523.60 Rs.3047.20 1/1/86 to 31/1/86 Rs.1800.00 Rs.15,283.20 Or Rs.1528.32 But pension admissible: 1528.32 x 58 2 x 66 = 671.53 or 672 Pension fixed as per: 764.16 – 375 = 389.16 or 390/- Clause 8.8 of Pension Statutes Date of start of pension 1.2.87 (as he was re employed upto 31/1/1987) 2 Civil Writ Petition No. 14830 of 2001 The above pension was paid to him w.e.f. 1/2/1987 as he was re-employed for one year. It is also evident from the above that service rendered by him in the Soils Department of Punjab Government i.e. from 18/3/1957 to 19/12/1962, has also been counted in his “Qualifying Service” for fixation of pension. Further, the pension of the petitioner was revised to Rs.2352/- minus Rs.1310/- equal to Rs.1042/- p.m. The amount of Rs.1310/- was the minimum pension being received by the petitioner from the Defence Department. However, when the orders of revision of pension were conveyed to the State Bank of India, PAU branch, Ludhiana, the bank calculated the arrears of pension by oversight, on the basis of the total amount of revised pension i.e. Rs.2352/- instead of Rs.1042/-, a rightly calculated above. Therefore, out of Rs.75631/- wrongly credited by the bank to the account of the petitioner, amount of Rs.63054/- was recovered by rectifying the mistake. This, being an inadvertent arithmetical error made by the State Bank of India, was rectified as soon as the same was detected. Similarly, to the benefit of the petitioner, another mistake was also rectified, i.e. his minimum pension received from Defence Department had been wrongly taken into account as Rs.1310/- whereas the Defence Department later on intimated as Rs.1275/-. So, on 8/2/2001, the pension was again revised and the amount of the arrears found payable to the petitioner was credited to his account. Thus, it was only a rectification of arithmetical mistake and not reduction in the pension. Therefore, there was no question of issuing any show cause notice or affording any opportunity to the petitioner.” Counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that the University has wrongly applied Rule 7.23 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. He has stated that in this case, Rule 7.19 of Section III shall be applicable. The same read as under: 3 Civil Writ Petition No. 14830 of 2001 “Section III Re-employment of Military Pensioners [7.19 The rules in Section II of this Chapter do not apply to a Military Officer, Departmental Officer, Warrant Officer or Non-Commissioned Officer or Soldier, who is taken into or allowed to continue in Civil employment after he has been granted a pension under Military Rules. His pension for service in his Civil Department will not be affected by his military pension.]” He has stated that Rule 7.23 is not applicable, as that is only in relation to the civil servants. Mr. Agnihotri has read before me the ‘Statute regarding Pension and Provident Funds & Pension Rules’ of Punjab Agricultural University. He has stated that reliance can be placed upon Rule 8.8, which is regarding deduction of compensation of invalid pension for the persons, who have been re-employed in pensionable service. He has stated that the rules have been adopted from Punjab Civil Service Rules (Volume II). It will be apposite here to reproduce para 1.7 of the Pension Rules of the University, which reads as under: “1.7 All matters pertaining to grant of pension to the retiriees of the University (Except those which have been specifically provided in the Pension Statutes) would be regulated in accordance with the Punjab Govt. rules/ instructions as amended from time to time or as modified by the Vice-Chancellor consistent with the provisions of the Act or keeping in view the activities/ character of the University.” Punjab Government had enacted rule 7.19 only to give impetus and benefits to the military service. Therefore, it has been held that a person retired from military service shall be entitled to military pension along with the pension, which he earns in his own right for rendering service. Present petitioner has served in military for 15 years and 4 Civil Writ Petition No. 14830 of 2001 thereafter, he served in Punjab Agricultural University for 20 years. Therefore, in view of the rules of the Punjab Government, which have been adopted by the Punjab Agricultural University, petitioner cannot be denied benefit of military pension and the same cannot be deducted. Therefore, the action of the University, whereby military pension was deducted from the pension computed and calculated by the University, is held to be bad. Petitioner will be entitled to both, the military pension as well as the pension for service rendered to the University. Therefore, present writ petition is disposed off in above terms. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE December 1, 2008 rps 5