In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh LPA No. 244 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: March 10, 2009 State of Punjab and others ... Appellants Vs. Ranjit Singh and others ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uma Nath Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Ms. Simsi Dhir, AAG, Punjab for the appellants. Mr. Gurdev Singh, Advocate for Mr. Karanjit Singh, Advocate the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J This Letter Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2.8.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition entitling the petitioner Sohan Singh (now deceased) to pension for the service which he has rendered with the State of Punjab from 25.10.1966 up to 30.6.1982. The State was also directed to compute the amount of pension treating him to have retired from service on 30.6.1982. It was also directed to release the arrears to him within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. In case, the petitioner had been paid any amount in lieu of pension, the same shall be adjusted against the pension due and payable to the petitioner-respondent Sohan Singh (since deceased and represented through L.Rs. Ranjit Singh and Baljit Singh). These arrears of pension would be paid only for a period of 38 months prior to the filing of the writ petition i.e. 20.7.1994. The respondents were also held entitled to recover interest @ 12% per annum on arrears of pension payable to them. LPA No. 244 of 2008 -2- *** Brief facts of the present case are that Sohan Singh was working as JBT teacher in the National High School, Bhikhiwind, District Amritsar. However, Punjab Government vide letter D.P.I. Punjab memo No.9815-PR-17/17-64 PR (N2) dated 25.10.1966 took over the said school along with staff, consequently service of the respondent-petitioner (herein referred as 'the respondent') was regularized along with other officials w.e.f. 25.10.1966, vide District Education Officer Amritsar order No. 1-S:3- H, 5-S, 9-S (Apptt. taken over ) 66/70884-8 dated 29.11.1966. Later on, he was transferred from Government High School, Bhikhiwind, District Amritsar to Government Middle School Bachiwind, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar and had ultimately retired on 30.6.1982. Resultantly, he made efforts to obtain pension, but he was not awarded the same, consequently, he was compelled to file a civil suit which was ultimately dismissed on the plea that the suit was barred by limitation as well as the civil court had no jurisdiction. Ultimately, he filed a writ petition which came up for preliminary hearing on 21.7.1994. Learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment dated 2.8.2006 while allowing the claim of the respondent accepted the writ petition in the aforesaid terms. State of Punjab has now challenged the impugned judgment. Heard. Admittedly, the respondent was working as JBT teacher in the National School Bhikhiwind which was taken over by the Government vide an order dated 29.11.1966 along with all the teachers working in the said school. The order further reveals that they were working on temporary basis for a period of six months till their services were regularized. Since the respondent was already a regular employee, LPA No. 244 of 2008 -3- *** therefore, he was entitled to be regularized in the government service and was entitled to receive all the pensionary benefits on attaining the age of superannuation. The State in its reply did not assign any reason for not regularizing his service and also not providing him the pension. The learned Single Judge in this regard has made the following observations :- “..... It is clearly a case of official lethargy. It appears that no body bothered to give attention to the petitioner's case regarding regularization of his service. The petitioner, has, thus, suffered for inaction of the State Government. Being a regular employee in the private school, he was entitled to be regularized in the State Government. There is, thus, no justification for the respondent not to have regularized the services of the petitioner.” Learned Single Judge further observed that the petitioner (respondent herein) shall be considered to be regular employee of the State Government from 25.10.1966 and was thus entitled to all the pensionary benefits for this period. No meaningful arguments have been advanced as to why the respondent was not entitled to pensionary benefits. Learned counsel for the appellant has tried to urge that since the respondent had lost in the civil suit, therefore, he could not prefer the present writ petition. In this regard it would be safe to observe that the civil suit was declined merely on the ground of limitation as well as for the reason that the civil court had no jurisdiction to decide the issue. No such findings have been returned by the civil court that the respondent Sohan LPA No. 244 of 2008 -4- *** Singh was not entitled to pensionary benefits. As regards limitation, the right to receive the due and correct salary and pension is a recurring right of the respondent and it accrues to an employee every month, therefore, if he does not receive his correct salary and pension for a period of time it gives rise to a recurring cause of action. The Apex Court in case M.R. Gupta vs. Union of India 1996 (1) SCT 8 observed as under :- “The appellant's grievance that his pay fixation was not in accordance with the rules, was the assertion of a continuing wrong against him which gave rise to a recurring cause of action each time he was paid a salary which was not computed in accordance with the rules. So long as the appellant is in service, a fresh cause of action arises every month when he is paid his monthly salary on the basis of a wrong computation made contrary to rules. It is no doubt true that if the appellant's claim is found correct on merits, he would be entitled to be paid according to the properly fixed pay scale in the future and the question of limitation would arise for recovery of the arrears for the past period. In other words, the appellant's claim, if any, for recovery of arrears calculated on the basis of difference in the pay which has become time barred would not be recoverable, but he would be entitled to proper fixation of his pay in accordance with rules and to cessation of a continuing wrong if on merits his claim is justified.” Thus, it was the bounden duty of the State to pay the LPA No. 244 of 2008 -5- *** pensionary benefits to the respondent Sohan Singh and the plea with regard to the limitation will not stand in the way of the respondent to lay his justiciable claim against the appellants. Since the State has failed to set up any plausible explanation as to why retrial benefits were declined to the respondent Sohan Singh and the written statement is also silent qua this fact, therefore, it cannot refuse the claim of the respondent. Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. (Uma Nath Singh) (A.N. Jindal) Judge Judge March 10, 2009 deepak