CWP No. 12278 of 2010 ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 12278 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 5th October, 2010. Er. Ramesh Chander Mahajan Petitioner through Mr. H.S.Saini, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mr. K.D.S.Sidhu, DAG, Punjab Mr. Pavit Mattewal, Advocate, Mr. M.S.Sidhu, Advocate, Mr. B.S.Jolly, Advocate and Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for PSEB. Ms. Ranjana Sahi, Advocate, for Union of India. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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] This order shall dispose of CWP No. 12278, 12289, 12297, 14382, 14396 of 2010 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. The petitioners have retired from different posts in the Punjab State Electricity Board on attaining their age of superannuation and they seek a direction for the counting of their previous service rendered with the Government of India and/or its Authorities towards the 'qualifying service' for pension and other retiral benefits. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 12278 of 2010. [2]. The petitioner retired from the post of Superintending Engineer in the Punjab State Electricity Board w.e.f. 31.05.2004 on attaining the age of superannuation. He had initially joined the respondent Board as an Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 26.11.1973. Before that, the CWP No. 12278 of 2010 ::-2-:: petitioner served as an Apprentice Engineer and Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 28.03.1969 in Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board till he joined the service in the respondent Board. The petitioner now seeks a direction for counting of the service rendered by him in the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board towards 'qualifying service' for the purposes of pension etc. in terms of the instructions dated 31.03.1982 [Annexure P-3] issued by the State of Punjab which have been duly adopted by the Punjab State Electricity Board vide Circular dated 25.11.1985 [Annexure P-5]. [3]. Learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem and to the extent that that the question as to whether or not the service rendered in a Government organization/Government of India before joining the respondent Board is to be counted towards 'qualifying service' for the purposes of pensionary benefits is no longer res-integra and stands settled by this Court in more than one decisions. While dismissing LPA No. 115 of 2006 [The Punjab State Electricity Board v The State of Punjab & Ors., a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.09.2008 [Annexure P-19] has held as follows:- “We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made at the Bar. It is true that the case of C.L.Malhotra vs State of Punjab and others and Harbans Singh Kohli Versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others, a direction was issued by this Court to the Government of India to determine and release, in favour of the State Electricity Board, within three months the amount of its liability towards pension payable to the employees, whereupon the Punjab State Electricity Board was required to release the benefits to the employees. But keeping in view the fact that any such CWP No. 12278 of 2010 ::-3-:: direction is likely to cause avoidable delay in the release of the pension in favour of the employees, we see no compelling reason why we should make the release of the pensions to the employees dependent upon whether the Punjab State Electricity Board receives or does not receive the contribution from the Government of India. It is no doubt true that in terms of the scheme, which has been formulated by the Punjab State Electricity Board and the Government of India, the Government of India is liable to make the contribution, but so long as there is a provision for payment of such contribution, the Punjab State Electricity Board should have no difficulty in recovering the same from the Government of India. The payment of pension to the employees could, in that view of the matter, be directed to be made straight-away with a further direction to the Government of India to pay within the time specified for the purpose its contribution towards the proportionate pension for the period the employee had served its establishment”. [4]. The Division Bench, however, directed the Government of India in that case to reimburse to the Punjab State Electricity Board the proportion amount towards pension and other retiral dues as is evident from the following direction:- “We also dispose of CWP Nos. 5245, 11243 of 2004 and LPA No. 152 of 2004 on the analogy of the directions given above and direct the Punjab State Electricity Board to determine the pensionary and other retiral benefits due to the petitioners, within two months from today after counting the period for which the said petitioners have worked with the Government of India or with the Government of Punjab as the case may be. Needless to say, that the Government of India shall even in those two cases reimburse to the Punjab State Electricity Board the proportionate amount in lump sum towards pension and CWP No. 12278 of 2010 ::-4-:: retiral benefits, within six months from today”. [5]. Some-what similar view has been taken by another Division Bench of this Court in S.C.Kapuria v Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors., 2007[4] SCT, 755 as well in a later decision in Union of India v State of Punjab & Ors., 2009[3] SCT, 597. [6]. Since the respondent Board has not filed any reply/affidavit and with a view to ensure that no prejudice is caused to it on this count alone, these writ petitions are disposed of in terms of law laid down by this Court in the afore-cited decisions, however, subject to the following directions:- [i] The PSEB/Power Com shall be entitled to verify the service said to have been rendered by the petitioners in the Government of India/other Organization within a period of four months. If upon verification, the service rendered by the petitioners is found to be covered under the Government instructions dated 31.03.1982 as adopted by the Board on 25.11.1985, the benefit of such service shall be granted to the petitioner towards the 'qualifying service', within a period of two months thereafter; [ii] The Government of India/its Agencies/other Boards shall also be at liberty to verify the service particulars of the petitioners and intimate the PSEB in this regard and reimburse to the PSEB their proportionate share in lump sum towards the pension and other retiral benefits payable to the petitioners within a period of six months. [7]. Disposed of. Dasti. October 05, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE