CWP No. 13825 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 13825 of 2008 Date of Decision : 5.8.2009 Prem Singh .......... Petitioner Versus State of Pun jab and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Om Pal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.L. Gupta, Addl. A.G. Punjab. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to release the retiral / pensionary benefits to the petitioner by considering the period of service of the petitioner, which he rendered before the school was taken over by the Government. This Court on July 28, 2009 was pleased to notice as under :- “ Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was working on a pensionable post in a private school. The petitioner had given his option for retiral benefits as is evident from Annexure P-1. The school was taken over CWP No. 13825 of 2008 2 by the State on 31.8.2000. The petitioner continued to work till the date of his superannuation i.e. 30.9.2007. Learned counsel has further drawn the attention of the Court towards Annexure P-4 i.e. judgment dated 11.7.2006 rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.12432 of 2004 (`Charan Singh vs. State of Punjab & Others’) wherein, under similar circumstances, the petitioner was given the benefit of pension. Learned counsel states that even in that case, the petitioner was working in the same school, on a pensionable post at the time when the school was taken over. The petitioner, in that case, superannuated on 30.4.2002. When the pension was not released, that petitioner approached this Court. The benefit of pension was allowed by this Court on the analogy that the petitioner would have received pension and other retiral benefits if he had continued to work in that school, if not taken over by the State. Learned counsel states that the case of the petitioner is on similar footing. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued to the contrary to contend that the cited case would have no application to the facts of this case in so much as the date of superannuation of the petitioner is in the year 2007. After 12.9.2003, the benefit of pension to employees working in private schools had been discontinued. In this regard, reference has been made to Notification CWP No. 13825 of 2008 3 dated 12.9.2003, copy whereof has been placed on record. Learned counsel states that in such circumstances, the case of the petitioner would be covered against the petitioner by judgment rendered in State of Punjab & Others vs. Dev Dutt Kaushal & Others, 1995 Supp (4) Supreme Court Cases 748.” The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & others Vs. Dev Dutt Kaushal and etc. etc., AIR 1986 Supreme Court 85, has no application to the facts of the present case. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that he is not claiming to be treated as a Government employee, from the date of his induction in service, but has claimed the service rendered by him, in the private school before its take over, be counted for the purpose of pension. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that even as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on which reliance has been placed by the State, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not opined on the question whether petitioner would be entitled to count his service rendered in private school for the purpose of pension. Para 14 of the judgment reads as under :- “14. Before parting with this case, we must refer to a circumstance brought to out notice. It is stated that in the year 1992, the Government of Punjab has framed a scheme under Rule 22-A of the Punjab Privately CWP No. 13825 of 2008 4 Managed Recognised Schools Employees (Security of Service ) Rules, 1981 under which scheme, it is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents, the teachers in the private schools taken over by the government are entitled to count their service under the private management for the purpose of pension. We do not express any opinion on the said contention. It is enough to observe that if any of the respondents in these appeals is entitled to any benefit under the said scheme, he is entitled to claim the same according to law. It may also be in these appeals only, Civil Appeal No. 1104 of 1995 pertains to a teacher in a school while in all other appeals pertain to lectures in college. The learned counsel asked us to clarify further that if in further the Government of Punjab frames a scheme with respect to lectures similar to the aforementioned scheme, this judgment should not stand in the way. In our opinion, the said apprehension is wholly unfounded. This judgment does not preclude the government from conferring such benefits as they may think appropriate on the respondents and other similarly placed persons nor does this decision stand in the way of such persons claiming the appropriate reliefs under such CWP No. 13825 of 2008 5 scheme, as and when framed.” On consideration, I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once it is not disputed, that the service of the petitioner in the private school before taking over was pensionable service, and that he had opted for pension, and furthermore, that the school was taken over by the State of Punjab in the year 2000. The service in the State school is also pensionable, there was, therefore, no occasion to invoke the notification dated 12.9.2003, to deny the benefit to the petitioner, as on the said date the petitioner was already a Government employee. In the judgment relied upon by the State itself, the Hon'ble Supreme Court to note of the fact, that the statutory scheme stood framed by the State of Punjab under Rule 22-A of the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Schools Employees (Security of Service ) Rules, 1981, to give benefit of the service rendered under the private management for the purpose of pension. Therefore, seen from any angle, the stand taken by the State in denying pension to the petitioner cannot be upheld. The case of the petitioner, is covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Charan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others CWP No. 12432 of 2004 decided on 11.7.2006. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to count the entire service, rendered by the petitioner in school including the one while it was being privately managed, before its take over by the government. The needful be done within a period of three months CWP No. 13825 of 2008 6 from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. All amounts due to the petitioner be released, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to the amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date it is due till the date of payment. 5.8.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE