IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 14029 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : 27.03.2009 Sucha Singh .... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. S.C. Pathela, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Gill, DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. R.N. Raina, Advocate, for respondent No.2. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner joined as Clerk in the Text Books Section of the Printing and Stationery Department, Punjab, on 12.3.1970. Thereafter, he was promoted as Junior Aditor. In the year 1975, the Punjab Government decided to transfer the Text Books Section of the Printing and Stationery Department along with its staff to the Punjab School Education Board (hereinafter referred to as `the Board'). Initially, the petitioner was sent on deputation with the Board, but subsequently on option given to him, he was absorbed in the Board on 30.6.1976. On attaining the age of superannuation, CWP No. 14029 of 2007 -2- he retired from the service of the Board on 31.12.2005, while working against the post of Senior Manager (Text Books Section). Undisputedly, service in the Board became pensionable with effect from 1.4.1991 for the first time, when the Punjab School Education Board (Employees' Pension, Provident Fund and Gratuity) Regulations, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as `the Pension Regulations') were promulgated. Accordingly, pension and gratuity of the petitioner has been fixed by the Board under the Pension Regulations, by taking into account the service rendered by him with the Board from 1.7.1976 to 31.12.2005, whereas the service rendered by him with the Punjab Government, Department of Printing and Stationery, from 12.3.1970 to 30.6.1976 was not taken into account as qualifying service for the purpose of fixation of pension. As per that calculation, the petitioner was paid his pension and retiral dues. Aggrieved against the action of the Board, the petitioner made a representation dated 27.3.2006 requesting the Board to grant him the benefit of the previous service rendered by him from 12.3.1970 to 30.6.1976 in the Printing and Stationery Department, Punjab, as qualifying service for the purpose of fixation of his pension and retiral dues. The Board vide its letter dated 8.5.2006 informed the petitioner that his case was not covered under the Pension Regulations and thus, he cannot be given the benefit of his previous service. The petitioner has challenged the said order in this petition. CWP No. 14029 of 2007 -3- In the short written statement filed by the respondent Board, it has been stated that in order to mitigate the hardship of the employees, who had come on deputation with the Board, an option was given to them either to leave service or face reversion to parent department or to be considered for permanent absorption with the Board. The employees who opted for absorption were absorbed in the Board in accordance with the terms and conditions dated 13.1.1976. Clause (iii) of the said terms and conditions specifically provides that after absorption, the employees will be governed by rules and regulations of the Board and that they will not claim any protection or privilege accruing from the previous service regulations. For all intends and purposes, the employees will be the employees of the Board. It has been stated that in view of this Clause, the petitioner cannot claim any benefit of the past services rendered by him in the Printing and Stationery Department prior to his absorption in the Board on 30.6.1976. It is further stated that the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of Clause (ii) of the terms and conditions of the Board, which provides that the employees absorbed in the Board shall be entitled to all the benefits of pensions and gratuity etc. as may be determined by the latest instructions of the Punjab Government for permanent absorption/transfer of Government employees to Corporations/ Companies. It is further stated that Clause (ii) would cover only such Printing and Stationery Department employees, who had put in pensionable service (20 years service) with the Punjab Government before absorption. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. CWP No. 14029 of 2007 -4- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the whole of the staff of the Text Books Section of the Printing and Stationery Department, Punjab, including the petitioner, were sent on deputation to the Board for a period of one year and thereafter, they were permanently absorbed in the Board. The GPF account of the petitioner in the Printing and Stationery Department was transferred to the Provident Fund account of the Board under the Provident Fund Regulations, 1970 of the Board. When the Pension Regulations were made applicable in the year 1992 with effect from 1.4.1991, the Provident Fund of the petitioner was again transferred to the GPF Account under the Pension Regulations. Therefore, there was no reason for not counting the service rendered by the petitioner in the Printing and Stationery Department towards his qualifying service for the purpose of pension and retiral dues. Learned counsel further points out that the previous service of the petitioner for the purpose of fixation of pay scale was taken into account, but while fixing the amount of his pension, the previous service was not taken into account by the Board. He further submits that since prior to joining the Board, the petitioner was the employee of the Punjab Government, therefore, he is governed by the Punjab Civil Service Rules. Rule 3.8 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol-II Part-I provides for counting of the previous service rendered with the Government as the qualifying service for the purpose of pension. Learned counsel has also relied upon a decision of this Court in Harlal Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2004 (4) RSJ 409, where the similar benefit CWP No. 14029 of 2007 -5- was granted to Shri Harlal Singh, who had rendered service with the Punjab Government prior to his joining the Board on deputation and thereafter was permanently absorbed in the Board. Learned counsel submits that the said judgment is squarely applicable in the instant case of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent Board only argued that after his absorption with the Board, the petitioner is to be governed by the rules and regulations of the Board and he cannot claim protection or privilege occurring from the previous service. He submits that when the petitioner was absorbed in the Board, at that time, he had not put in pensionable service (20 years service) with the Punjab Government, therefore, he cannot be granted the benefit of his previous service for calculating the qualified service for pensionary benefits under the Pension Regulations. After hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the previous service rendered by the petitioner in the Printing and Stationery Department, Punjab is to be counted towards the qualifying service of the petitioner for the purpose of fixing the pension under the Pension Regulations. Undisputedly, the petitioner has rendered regular service in the Printing and Stationery Department, Punjab from 12.3.1970 to 30.6.1976. It is also not disputed that in the year 1975, the Punjab Government decided to transfer the Text Books Section of the Printing and Stationery Department along with its staff to the Board. All the employees of the Text Books Section were sent on deputation to the Board for permanent absorption and CWP No. 14029 of 2007 -6- after giving them an option, they were absorbed in the service of the Board from 1.7.1976. The petitioner was the regular employee of the Board. In the year 1991, the Board promulgated the Pension Regulations, which came into force with effect from 1.4.1991. Prior to 1991, service of the petitioner was not pensionable. The Pension Regulations provided that only such Board employees were qualified for pension who were holding substantively permanent posts on the date of their retirement. Regulation 4 provides that the regulations shall apply, inter alia, to the employees taken on deputation from other departments but later on absorbed in the service of the Board. Regulation 5 (1) defines qualifying service to include all period spent on duty without interruption and all periods of leave in which leave salary is paid. Regulation 6 provides addition to service qualifying for pension and Regulation 13 provides for the manner in which the pension of a retiree is to be fixed. It is not disputed that the petitioner is entitled to pension under the Pension Regulations. Actually, the pension of the petitioner has been calculated while counting his service from 1.7.1976 to 31.12.2005 as qualifying service. However, the service rendered by him with the Punjab Government was not counted towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension and retiral dues. Exactly the similar controversy has been decided by this Court in Harlal Singh's case (supra), wherein it was held as under : “It is not denied by the respondents that the petitioner is entitled to pension under the Regulations. The only question is CWP No. 14029 of 2007 -7- as to whether the petitioner is entitled to add the entire service rendered with the State of Punjab for the purposes of qualifying service on the post of which the pension and the retiral dues are to be computed. It is not disputed that the petitioner joined the State of Punjab as a Technical Assistant on 22.12.1962. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has been in uninterrupted service of the State of Punjab till he joined the Board on deputation on 5.7.1983. It is also not disputed that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Deputy Secretary (Administration) which require specialised qualifications. A candidate was required to have a Master's degree or LL.B. of a recognised University. A candidate was also required to have 15 years experience in Educational Administration-cum-Teaching out of which 5 years experience has to be as the District Education Officer or its equivalent or higher grade. The petitioner competed with other candidates and was appointed on deputation as Deputy Secretary (Administration) on 5.7.1983. This order was passed in public interest. Clearly, therefore, in such circumstances, the petitioner's case is covered under Regulation 6 (c) of the Regulations. Regulation 6 (3) reproduced above, provides for adding of the entire service to qualifying service on the posts for which special qualification is required at the time of recruitment. As noticed above, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Deputy Secretary (Administration) on the basis of his specialised experience.” Learned counsel for the respondent Board does not dispute the fact that the aforesaid judgment covers the case of the petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any reason to accept the contention of learned counsel for the respondent Board that after his absorption with the Board, the petitioner is CWP No. 14029 of 2007 -8- to be governed by the rules and regulations of the Board and his past regular service with the Punjab Government cannot be counted towards the qualifying service for the purposes of pension. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the impugned order/letter dated 8.5.2006 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Pension Regulations and the same is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to fix the pension of the petitioner by taking into account the period of service rendered by him with the Punjab Government in the Printing and Stationery Department from 12.3.1970 to 30.6.1976 and to re- fix his pension and retiral dues within two months and thereafter release the consequential benefits to the petitioner with interest within the period of further two months. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. March 27, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE