CWP Nos.1259 of 2011 and 809 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 24.1.2011 1.CWP No.1259 of 2011 Joginder Lal ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others …Respondents 2.CWP No.809 of 2009 Lachhman Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Sharwan Sehgal and Mr.BN Sehgal, Advocates for the petitioner Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab Mr.Hitesh Sood, Advocate for Mr.Harish Aggarwal, Advocate Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) Notice of motion in CWP No.1259 of 2011. Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab who is present in Court has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents. Keeping in view the controversy involved and with the consent of CWP Nos.1259 of 2011 and 809 of 2009 2 learned counsel for the parties, both the writ petitions are being disposed of at motion stage by this common order as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the writ petitions. The services of the petitioners were terminated. The Labour Court vide its awards set aside the termination of the petitioners and directed their reinstatement with continuity of service. Full back wages were also ordered in case of petitioner in CWP No.809 of 2009 whereas in case of petitioner in CWP No.1259 of 2011, back wages were not ordered. The petitioners retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The grievance of the petitioners is that the period of service when they remained out of job due to their termination, has not been counted towards pensionary benefits. It is agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in these petitions is no more res integra, having been settled by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajinder Pal vs. State of Punjab and others (CWP No.18920 of 2006) decided on 21.8.2008 wherein following observations/directions have been made:- “.... We are of the view that the stand taken by the respondents is wholly unjustified. Once the petitioner has been reinstated with continuity in service, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to say that the said period cannot be counted towards qualifying service, as for the period in question, wages were not paid. In view of orders, passed by the Labour Court, it was incumbent for the respondents to nationally fix pay of the petitioner for the period in dispute and calculate the same towards qualifying service and thereafter pension amount should CWP Nos.1259 of 2011 and 809 of 2009 3 have been released in his favour. In view of facts, mentioned above, we allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to count period falling between April 24, 1974 till October 16, 1980 towards qualifying service and then refix pension of the petitioner. Arrears due be paid to the petitioner alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per annum (simple). In view of unreasonable stand taken by the respondents, petitioner shall also be entitled to get costs of Rs.5000/-. In view of the above, these petitions are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 21.1. 2011 MFK CWP No.10585 of 2010 4