CWP No.9433 of 1996 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.9433 of 1996 Date of decision : 03-08-2010 Joginder Pal Vaid .... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Swaran Sandhir, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Puri, Addl. AG, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. R.L. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, petitioner – Joginder Pal Vaid, who retired as an Assistant Land Escapping Officer from Punjabi University, Patiala, has prayed that the service rendered by him in the Horticulture Department from 10.12.1955 to 4.09.1965 be counted towards grant of pensionary benefits and gratuity. Before the prayer of the petitioner is considered, it will be necessary to recapitulate facts of the case. Petitioner joined Horticulture Department of the State as Supervisor on 10.12.1955. In the year 1965, petitioner applied in the Punjabi University, Patiala for appointment to the post of Horticulture Inspector. He was appointed in the University and on 5.09.1965 he joined as such. In the year 1967-68 petitioner was promoted as Assistant Land Escapping CWP No.9433 of 1996 -2- Officer. Petitioner retired on 31.03.1994. Petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the respondent – University taken on 28.06.1991 to urge that the service rendered in the State Government be considered towards terminal benefits. The following amendment was brought in the Service Rules by the University:- “A person who after having served in other Universities in the Punjab State, including Punjab University, Chandigarh or in any Government Department/Government College in Punjab (including areas in Punjab at the time he joined this University) has joined University, shall also be allowed the benefit of previous service while calculating qualifying service under the Pension Scheme at this University at the time of retirement, superannuation or premature retirement, as the case may be, provided that he had put at the least three years service in his parent department and no C.P.F./pensionary benefits had been obtained for the period of service rendered in the parent Department.” Mr. R.L. Sharma, Advocate appearing for the University has stated that as per University Scheme (Annexure P-1), before any employee is to be given this benefit, he has to satisfy following three conditions:- (a) The employee must have rendered three years' service in the State Government. (b) Employee has availed no benefit from the State Government in lieu of the discharge of service. (c) The employee has to apply through the proper channel. To controvert these submissions, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a certificate dated 30.12.1980, Annexure P-2 issued by Assistant Director, Horticulture Department, Patiala wherein it CWP No.9433 of 1996 -3- has been stated that petitioner worked in the State Government from 10.12.1955 to 4.09.1965 and he has not been given benefit of gratuity and pension etc. at the time of his resignation. Therefore, condition (a) and (b) specified above have been fulfilled by the petitioner. The only ground on which the petitioner has been denied benefit of past service rendered in the State Government is that he has not applied through proper channel and he resigned from the State Government. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in S.C. Kapuria versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others, 2007(4) SCT 755 wherein it has been held that even though employee has resigned and joined the Electricity Board, he was entitled to benefit of the service rendered in the State Government on the basis of instructions issued by the Board. To fortify this submission, further reliance has been placed upon Union of India versus State of Punjab and others, 2009(3) SCT 597. In the written statement filed, Punjabi University has stated that pensionary benefits are not allowed to the petitioner because the petitioner applied to the post of Horticulture Inspector with the University directly and not through proper channel. It is stated that this objection was raised by Auditor Local Funds Account vide Annexure R-3/1. From a perusal of amendment made in the Statute regarding pension of the University employees, which is annexed as a notification (Annexure P-1) it is apparent that nowhere it has been stated that the employee should have applied through proper CWP No.9433 of 1996 -4- channel nor it prescribes that due to resignation an employee of the State Government will be disentitled to the counting of service rendered in the present Department. The amendment added after Section 9(III) only laid two conditions:- i) That employee should have rendered three years' service in the State Government. ii) He should not have obtained any benefit from the State Government for rendering that period of service. In view of the amendment made in the Statute vide notification (Annexure P-1) the objections raised by the Auditor Local Funds Account due to which petitioner was deprived of counting of past service towards terminal benefits cannot be sustained. Thus, this Court is of the view that the service rendered by the petitioner in the Horticulture Department from 10.12.1955 to 4.09.1965 is to be counted for calculating qualifying service under the pension scheme enacted by the University. The present writ petition is allowed in the above terms. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 03-08-2010 JUDGE manju