IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.11139 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 30.05.2011 Er.Suraj Parkash Verma ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.H.S.Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.B.S.Sudan, Advocate for Dr.Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Ms.Anjali Kukar, Advocate, for respondent No.3. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present writ petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing Punjab State Electricity Board, (now Punjab State Power Corporation), (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') to count the past service of the petitioner with effect from 9.4.1969 to 22.1.1972 rendered by him with the Central Public Works Department-respondent No.3 as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed as Sectional Officer (Electrical) with the Central Public Works Department-respondent No.3 on 9.4.1969 and he continued to work as such till 22.1.1972 when on the basis of an advertisement issued by the Board, the petitioner was selected and appointed as an Apprentice Engineer. C.W.P.No.11139 of 2009 -2- He submitted his resignation to fulfil the administrative requirement which was duly accepted by respondent No.3 and on that basis the petitioner, after being relieved by respondent No.3, joined his duties on 24.1.1972. The petitioner retired as Superintending Engineer on 30.6.2003 from the Board. He represented to the Board for counting the past service, which he had rendered with respondent No.3 for the purpose of pensionary benefits, as qualifying service. The same was not done, however, the plea was taken by respondent No.2 that the contribution which was required to be made by respondent No.3 has not been made and, therefore, the said period will not be counted towards qualifying service. The petitioner was, thus, forced to file the present writ petition. Upon notice of motion having been issued by this Court, respondents had put in appearance and filed their respective replies. The stand of the Board is the same. What has been stated by the respondent- Board is that a contribution of Rs.1,33,733/- is required to be made by respondent No.3 towards the pension liability and death-cum-retirement gratuity (DCRG). On the other hand, respondent No.3 has filed an affidavit stating therein that in the case of another Engineer, namely, Shyam Lal Chug, who was similarly situated and had worked for the same period with respondent No.3, the calculations earlier made by the Board was Rs.59,748/-. The amount, as per the said calculations, has already been paid to the respondent-Board in Court on 28.4.2011. It is the contention of counsel for respondent No.3 that no further amount has to be paid by respondent No.3. C.W.P.No.11139 of 2009 -3- Confronted with this situation, counsel for respondent No.2 states that the calculations made by the Board while calculating the amount of liability of respondent No.3, while dealing with the case of Shyam Lal Chug was done on a mistaken belief and the calculations were wrong. He, therefore, contends that the liability of respondent No.3 is Rs.1,33,733/-. The details of the calculations were supplied to respondent No.3 which, according to counsel for respondent No.2, has not been disputed by respondent No.3, which assertion of the counsel for respondent No.2 is disputed by counsel for respondent No.3. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner cannot be made a casuality for the inter-departmental dispute between the respondents No.2 and 3. It is open to both the respondents to settle their disputes as per the forum available to them. The prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition is allowed. A direction is issued to respondent No.2 to count the past service of the petitioner with effect from 9.4.1969 to 22.1.1972 rendered by him with respondent No.3 as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The consequential benefits which the petitioner would be entitled to in the light of the above addition of service to the qualifying service for pension, be released to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The revised pension by including the said benefit be also released to him within the time specified. May 30, 2011 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE