IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 1247 of 2011 Date of Decision: July 25, 2011 Punjab State Electricity Board …Appellant Versus Er. Gurpal Singh and others …Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUST HON’BLE MR. JUST HON’BLE MR. JUST HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH ICE GURDEV SINGH ICE GURDEV SINGH ICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Balwinder Singh Jolly, Advocate, for the appellant(s) 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The short issue raised in this appeal is whether the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 is entitled to count previous service rendered by him with the Government of India, towards qualifying service for the purposes of pension and other retiral benefits after his superannuation from the appellant-Board. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenges order dated 23.2.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge. 2. From a bare perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge it is evident that counsel for the respondent fairly conceded that the issue has been answered L.P.A. No. 1247 of 2011 L.P.A. No. 1247 of 2011 L.P.A. No. 1247 of 2011 L.P.A. No. 1247 of 2011 2 by this Court in the case of Er. Ramesh Chander Mahajan Er. Ramesh Chander Mahajan Er. Ramesh Chander Mahajan Er. Ramesh Chander Mahajan v. v. v. v. State of Punjab and others State of Punjab and others State of Punjab and others State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 12278 of 2010, decided on (CWP No. 12278 of 2010, decided on (CWP No. 12278 of 2010, decided on (CWP No. 12278 of 2010, decided on 5.10.2010) 5.10.2010) 5.10.2010) 5.10.2010). Accordingly, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition in terms of the judgment rendered in Er. Er. Er. Er. Ramesh Chander Mahajan’s case (supra) Ramesh Chander Mahajan’s case (supra) Ramesh Chander Mahajan’s case (supra) Ramesh Chander Mahajan’s case (supra). 3. It is pertinent to mention that in Ramesh Chander Ramesh Chander Ramesh Chander Ramesh Chander Mahajan’s case (supra) Mahajan’s case (supra) Mahajan’s case (supra) Mahajan’s case (supra) the learned Single Judge disposed of a bunch of writ petitions by placing reliance on two Division Bench judgments of this Court rendered in the cases of The The The The Punjab State Electricity Board Punjab State Electricity Board Punjab State Electricity Board Punjab State Electricity Board v. v. v. v. The State of Punjab and others The State of Punjab and others The State of Punjab and others The State of Punjab and others (LPA No. 115 of 2006, decided on 12.9.2008 (LPA No. 115 of 2006, decided on 12.9.2008 (LPA No. 115 of 2006, decided on 12.9.2008 (LPA No. 115 of 2006, decided on 12.9.2008 and S.C. Kapuria S.C. Kapuria S.C. Kapuria S.C. Kapuria v. v. v. v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others Punjab State Electricity Board and others Punjab State Electricity Board and others Punjab State Electricity Board and others, 2007 (4) SCT, 755 , 2007 (4) SCT, 755 , 2007 (4) SCT, 755 , 2007 (4) SCT, 755 as well as well as the judgment rendered in the case of Union of Union of Union of Union of India India India India v. v. v. v. State of Punjab and others State of Punjab and others State of Punjab and others State of Punjab and others, 2009 (3) SCT 597 , 2009 (3) SCT 597 , 2009 (3) SCT 597 , 2009 (3) SCT 597, holding that the issue stands concluded and the appellant-Board is under obligation to count the previous service rendered by employees in the Government of India or any other organisation. The learned Single Judge issued the following directions:- "[i] The PSEB/Power Com shall be entitled to verify the service said to have been rendered by the petitioners in the Government of India/other Organization within a period of four months. If upon verification, the service rendered by the petitioners is found to be covered under the Government instructions dated 31.03.1982 as L.P.A. No. 1247 of 2011 L.P.A. No. 1247 of 2011 L.P.A. No. 1247 of 2011 L.P.A. No. 1247 of 2011 3 adopted by the Board on 25.11.1985, the benefit of such service shall be granted to the petitioner towards the 'qualifying service', within a period of two months thereafter; [ii] The Government of India/its Agencies/other Boards shall also be at liberty to verify the service particulars of the petitioners and intimate the PSEB in this regard and reimburse to the PSEB their proportionate share in lump sum towards the pension and other retiral benefits payable to the petitioners within a period of six months." 4. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant-Board is that the appellant Board should not be compelled to make payment to the writ petitioner- respondent No. 1 first and then recover it from the Central Government or any other agency later. However, we do not find any substance in the aforesaid submission because the directions are based on the Government instructions dated 31.3.1982, which have been duly adopted by the appellant- Board on 25.11.1985. Moreover, an individual employee is not expected to wait for the financial benefits which are payable to such retiree. Therefore, it has been rightly directed by the learned Single Judge that the payment may be made to the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 first and the same may be recovered from the Union of India. We find nothing extra L.P.A. No. 1247 of 2011 L.P.A. No. 1247 of 2011 L.P.A. No. 1247 of 2011 L.P.A. No. 1247 of 2011 4 ordinary in the aforesaid direction which may warrant interference of this Court. The instant appeal is without merit and, thus, libel to be dismissed. 4. As a sequel to the above discussion, this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH) July 2 uly 2 uly 2 uly 25, 2011 , 2011 , 2011 , 2011 JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE PKapoor