IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14898 of 2007 Date of Decision : August 25, 2010. Niranjan Singh (retired Inspector) .....Petitioner versus Managing Director, Pepsu Road Transport Corpn. and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.R.S.Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner joined the respondent-Corporation as a Conductor w.e.f. 1.1.1966 on regular basis and it appears that his services were terminated w.e.f. 17.2.1969. The petitioner, who was a member of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, withdrew his entire provident fund on 22.4.1970. He also impugned the order of termination of his services and the matter was referred to Sh.I.C.Puri, IAS, who was appointed as an Arbitrator in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement arrived at between the Management of the respondent-Corporation and its Employees Union. The Arbitrator persuaded the parties to enter into the following C.W.P.No .14898 of 2007 2 settlement:- “....In order to win good will and to maintain cordial industrial relations, the Management had agreed to put on duty all the workers, with continuity of service mentioned in Annexure-A, preferred in para No.1 above after withdrawing the application from the arbitrator with the conditions that if cases dated 14.10.1978 entered into between management PRTC and same authorized representative of the workers in the similar nature of cases decided in favour of the Management then workers mentioned in Annexure-A of this settlement will not receive and back wages for the period they remained out of service. However, if the said cases mentioned in settlement dated 14.10.1978 ultimately were decided against the Management, then the workers mentioned in Annexure-A of this settlement would receive 33% of wages of the period they remained out of service.” In terms of the aforesaid settlement, the petitioner was reinstated in service w.e.f. 24.1.1981 and he again became member of the Provident Fund Scheme w.e.f. 1.5.1981. The petitioner has thereafter retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 28.2.2003. Since the respondents have granted the pensionary and other retiral dues to the petitioner by counting his service w.e.f. 25.1.1981 only, that he has approached this Court. The only question that arises for consideration is as to whether or not the service rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1966 to 17.2.1969 C.W.P.No .14898 of 2007 3 and again from 18.2.1969 till he was reinstated on 24.1.1981, deserves to be counted towards the 'qualifying service' for the purposes of pensionary benefits? There is no denial to the fact that in terms of the settlement between the parties, the petitioner was re-instated with 'continuity of service' which would obviously mean that he shall be deemed to be in service from the date of termination of his services till his re-instatement on 24.1.1981. The respondents though do not dispute this legal fact, nevertheless, plead that since the petitioner had withdrawn the entire amount of provident fund on 22.4.1970 and thereafter became member of the Provident Fund Scheme on 1.5.1981 only, that the service rendered by him as a member of the Provident Fund Scheme alone can be taken into account for the purpose of pension and other retiral dues. It is also pointed out that the 'pension scheme' has been introduced in lieu of the Provident Fund Scheme and is contributory in nature. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the records. In my considered view, the entire service rendered by the petitioner deserves to be taken into account as 'qualifying service' for the purpose of pension and other retiral dues as even during the break period, he is deemed to have continued in service as per the 'Settlement Award' passed by the Arbitrator. The only recourse to give full effect to the 'settlement' would be to hold the petitioner liable to refund the amount of provident fund withdrawn by him after termination of his services on C.W.P.No .14898 of 2007 4 22.4.1970. Similarly, the petitioner shall also be liable to contribute his share towards provident fund for the intervening period when he was out of service but is now deemed to have been continuing as per the settlement arrived at before the Arbitrator. The respondent-Corporation shall have to contribute the employer's share for the said period. The respondents shall accordingly inform the petitioner the amount of the provident fund alongwith the interest which the petitioner is liable to refund as directed above, within a period of one month from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall deposit those arrears within a period of two months thereafter. The respondents shall then re-fix the pension and other retiral dues to which the petitioner is found entitled to as per the Pension Scheme, taking into consideration the service rendered by him w.e.f. 1.1.1966. The needful shall be done within a period of two months thereafter. Disposed of. Dasti. August 25, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE