C.W.P No. 10168 of 2005 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 10168 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision : July 15, 2010 Dr. Sashi Bala, ...... Petitioner (s) v. The State of Punjab and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Gill, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) The petitioner by way of this writ petition claims the benefits of previous service. In February 1989, by order (Annexure P-1), the petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer in the State of Punjab on fixed pay with allowances on short term basis. Thereafter, she was appointed to the Haryana Civil Medical Service (HCMS) on 12.12.1992 through proper channel. As per the order (Annexure P-3), she was appointed in the running scale of pay. Again some posts were advertised in the Punjab Civil Medical C.W.P No. 10168 of 2005 (O&M) ::2:: Service (PCMS) and she was appointed to that cadre through proper channel by order dated 16.3.1999 in which position she has now been working for the last eleven years. Thereafter, she represented that her previous service in Haryana w.e.f February 1989 to 23.3.1999 be counted towards pay, seniority and retiral benefits. Finding no response, the petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No.20634 of 2002 which was disposed of by a direction to decide the representation/legal notice of the petitioner by passing a speaking order. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the impugned order (Annexure P-8) came to be passed by which the prayer of the petitioner was declined on the ground that rules relating to pay protection envisaged service in the same regular time scale, and for a period of atleast 5 years before personal pay could be protected. Faced with this, counsel for the petitioner has very fairly stated that the petitioner may not be entitled to the protection of pay and seniority but that her service should be counted towards retiral benefits. He has relied upon S.C.Kapuria vs Punjab State Electricity Board and others, 2007(4)SCT 755, wherein a Division Bench of this Court held as follows :- “ 5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent-Board referred to and relied upon judgment of this court in R.P.Singla v. State of Punjab and another, 2002(3) SCT 1062, wherein considering an identical issue with regard to an employee of the Board, who was in service with the State of Punjab before joining with the Board, this court held as under :- `The short point for determination before me is whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of C.W.P No. 10168 of 2005 (O&M) ::3:: previous service for the purpose of retiral/pensionary benefits and if so, who are liable to pay that benefit and on what terms. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that as per instructions Annexure P-15, the previous service performed by the petitioner in the State Government has to be reckoned by respondent No.2 for the purpose of calculating the retiral benefits. He further submitted that the instructions Annexure P-15 have been adopted by the Board vide letter Annexure P-16. Para No.2 of the instructions Annexure P-15 lays down as follows :- `2. This benefit will be admissible on to the following categories of employees :- 1).................. 2) Those who while holding temporary posts under Central/State Government apply for posts under State/Central Government through proper channel with proper permission of the administration authority concerned.' These instructions had been adopted as is evident from the document Annexure P-16 and the operative portion of the decision runs as follows : The Punjab State Electricity Board have adopted the aforesaid letter of the Government and also the C.W.P No. 10168 of 2005 (O&M) ::4:: instructions expressed along with conditions and the date of its implementation i.e 31.3.1982.' Thus, there is no manner of doubt that the Board was bound to reckon the previous period of service of the petitioner when he performed his duties in the State Government in order to calculate the retiral/pensionary benefits. Faced with this difficulty, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the Board was liable to reckon the previous service on reciprocal basis between the Board and the State Government. Since there was no reciprocal arrangement, therefore, the Board is not liable to count the benefit of previous service. He submitted in the alternative that even if it is assumed that the Board is liable to pay, still the State is supposed to discharge its liability for the service rendered by the petitioner from 1960 to 1973. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the opinion that the petitioner joined the service of the Board after performing about 13 years service in the Punjab Government and, therefore, that service has to be counted by the Board on the basis of shared liability and respondent No.1 i.e the State of Punjab cannot escape from its liability from depositing the pension contribution for the period rendered by the petitioner in the State service. C.W.P No. 10168 of 2005 (O&M) ::5:: Resultantly, this writ petition stands allowed and directions are given to respondent No.1 to pay to respondent No.2 the pension contribution towards the service rendered by the petitioner from 20.6.1960 to 21.6.1973 within three months from the receipt of copy of the order and further directions are given to respondent No.2 that in the event of receipt of said amount, they shall count the said period for the purpose of qualifying service and shall prepare a case of revised pension and the revised pension shall be released within three months from the receipt of the share of contribution from the State Government. There shall be no order as to costs.” Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 has not been able to cite any contrary judgment. Thus, in the present case, the position which emerges is that from February 1989 up to 12.12.1992, the petitioner worked on adhoc basis in fixed pay. Thereafter, by order (Annexure P-3), she was appointed to the Haryana Civil Medical Service in the running scale of pay. At this time, when she applied for the post of PCMS, she was working in the regular pay scale. That service would definitely count for the purpose of qualifying service as explained in the judgment of S.C.Kapuria's case (supra). Consequently, this writ petition is partly allowed and it is directed that the earlier service of the petitioner in the State of Haryana would be counted towards her retiral benefits. As the main petition has since been disposed of, all the C.W.P No. 10168 of 2005 (O&M) ::6:: pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 14, 2010. JUDGE `kk'