IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 9171 of 1991(O&M) Date of Decision: 31.5.2011. Vinod Chander Gupta --Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Dr. Balram Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shirish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Rita Kohli, Addl. A.G., Punjab. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Petitioner was appointed as a Steno-typist in the Department of Industrial Training, Punjab on 25.8.1984. While working as such, he appeared in the competitive test for appointment to the post of Junior Scale Stenographer conducted by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab. On successful qualification of the test, he was promoted as Junior Scale Stenographer in the office of Director, Industrial Training, Punjab on 7.7.1966. He earned further promotion as Senior Scale Stenographer on 17.7.1974. In the year 1995 the Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) circulated a letter inviting applications for appointment on the post of Personal Assistant by way of deputation. Petitioner submitted his application through proper channel and was selected. He joined the services of Board on 11.1.1985. The Board adopted a resolution dated 23.11.1987 and decided to absorb the petitioner permanently in the services of the Board. Such absorption was with the consent of the Director of Technical Education of Industrial Training, Punjab vide his letter dated 5.4.1988. Now the petitioner has superannuated CWP No. 9171 of 1991(O&M) -2- from the services of the Board on 31.8.2005. At the time of his absorption in the Board, petitioner was retired from the Govt. service and thus he was entitled to pensionary benefits from the Govt. as he had rendered more than 23 years of service in the State of Punjab. After his retirement while the petitioner was on deputation with the Board, the State Govt. revised the pay scales of the Punjab Govt. employees w.e.f.1.1.1986 and also revised the pension of the retired employees. This revision was notified vide letter dated 31.8.1989. Petitioner represented vide his representation dated 11.9.1989 for re-fixation of pension and gratuity as per the revised rules. His claim was recommended by the Director of Technical Education (Industrial), Punjab vide letter dated 8.12.1989, however, he was not granted the benefit of revision of pension etc. The petitioner is orthopaedically handicapped. He was handicapped even when he joined the Govt. service. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner for claiming the retiral benefits from the State Govt. in the year 1999 when he was still in the service of the Board. Apart from the benefit of 23 years of actual service rendered by him, petitioner also claimed benefit of Rule 4 (2) and 4.2(4), which are reproduced hereunder:- “ 4(2)-While granting proportionate pension and gratuity to an employee retiring under sub-rule (3) of Rule 3, his qualifying service as on the date of intended retirement shall be increased by a period not exceeding five years, so however, that the total qualifying service of the employee as so increased shall not in any case exceed thirty three years or the period of qualifying service which the employee would have completed had he retired on the date of his superannuation, whichever be less. 4.2(4)- A Govt. employee who is blind, deaf, dumb or otherwise orthopaedically handicapped or widow, shall be eligible to add to his service qualifying for superannuation pension of 5 years.” CWP No. 9171 of 1991(O&M) -3- Benefit of Rule 4(2) was claimed by the petitioner on the ground that the retirment from the service of the Govt. was under the Premature Retirement Rules, 1975. He has further referred to Rule 5.3(2) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.II which deals with the permanent absorption of a permanent Govt. employee in a service or post in or under a Corporation or company wholly and substantially owned or controlled by the Govt. Under this rule, where a permanent govt. employee is absorbed in a Corporation or company wholly and substantially owned by the Govt. and his absorption is in public interest, he is deemed to have retired from Govt. service from the date of such absorption. In such an eventuality the employee is eligible to receive retirement benefits in accordance with the above rules by exercising the option either to receive the monthly pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity under the usual Govt. arrangement or receive the death-cum-retirement gratuity and a lump sum amount in lieu of the pension to be worked out with reference to commutation table. However, Rule 4(2) provides that where an employee is retired under sub rule 3 of Rule 3 of Premature Retirement Rules, he is entitled to the increase benefit of service not exceeding 5 years, however, this benefit cannot exceed the total qualifying service of the employees i.e. 33 years which is the maximum of qualifying service prescribed under rules. Apart from the aforesaid benefit the petitioner being orthopaedically handicapped also claimed benefit under Rule 4.2 (4), referred to above. After this matter was heard and reserved for judgement on 28.4.2011 the petitioner has filed a C.M. Application No.6306 of 2011 stating therein that the petitioner has already been granted the benefit of CWP No. 9171 of 1991(O&M) -4- additional 9 years of service by the Board in terms of Rule 4(2). Thus, the petitioner confines his prayer only to the benefit of qualifying service contemplated under Rule 4.2(4). At the time of arguments learned State counsel vehemently argued that the petitioner is not entitled to benefit of Rule 4.2 as the petitioner's retirement was not under sub rule 3 of Rule 3 of Premature Retirement Rules, 1975 but his retirement is under Rule 5.3 in the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.II on the basis of his absorption in the Govt. owned Corporation. It is contended that benefit of Rule 4.2 is available only to such of an employee, whose retirement is under sub rule 3 of Rule 3 of 1975 Rules. In view of the application filed by the petitioner, this controversy need not to be addressed to as the petitioner has already got the benefit of Rule 4.2 on his retirement from the Board. Now the only claim of the petitioner is under Rule 4.2(4) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.II. The State has denied the claim of the petitioner by simply stating that the petitioner's retirement from the Govt. service cannot be treated as superannuation. Rule 4.2(4) provides for addition of 5 years period for purposes of superannuation pension to a Govt. employee who is blind, deaf, dumb or otherwise orthopaedically handicapped or widow. It is admitted fact that the petitioner is orthopaedically handicapped. Thus, the only question is whether the Rule 4.2 (4) is applicable in case of the petitioner for purposes of additional benefit of 5 years of qualifying service for pension. The rule provides for superannuation pension. The words “superannuate”, “superannuated” and “superannuation” have been defined in the Chambers' 21st Century Dictionary as under:- CWP No. 9171 of 1991(O&M) -5- “1. Superannuate- (1) to make (an employee) retire on a pension e.g. Because of illness, old age etc. (2) to discard as too old for further use. Superannuated the old computer in favour of a fancy multimedia one (2) Superannuated-(1) said of a post, vacancy, job etc. with a pension as an integral part of the employment package. (2) made to retire and given a pension; pensioned off (3) old and no longer fit for use. (3) Superannuation-(1) an amount i.e regularly deducted from employee's wages as a contribution to a company pension (2) the pension someone receives when they retire (3) retirement.” The word superannuation has not been defined under the Punjab Civil Services Rules, however, from the dictionary meaning it appears that the superannuation and retirement are synonym. According to learned State counsel the word superannuation means retirement on attaining the maximum prescribed age of retirement, however, from the meaning of of the word superannuation, it does not convey that the superannuation is to be construed only the maximum retirement age of an employee prescribed under the service rules. Superannuation will also mean retirement at any intermediary stage, where an employee is permitted to retire and entitled to pensionary benefits under law e.g premature retirement, compulsory retirement or any other kind of retirement envisaged under service rules which may inter alia include the situation like retirement on medical ground or absorption in any other service which carries pensionary benefits. Thus, whether retirement is under Rule 3.3 of 1975 Rules or Rule 5.3 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.II, so long it carries the retirement benefits, it will be deemed to be superannuation. CWP No. 9171 of 1991(O&M) -6- Rule 4.2 (4) clearly confers 5 years additional benefit to a handicapped person for purposes of earning superannuation pension. Admittedly, petitioner had sufficient qualifying service to earn pension from the govt. as he had served for more than 23 years. Thus, he is entitled to addition of 5 years period for purposes of superannuation pension under the aforesaid rule. The other contention of the State is that even if, the additional period of 5 years is to be added to superannuation pension, it cannot cross the maximum pension period of 33 years as prescribed under Rule 4.2. I am unable to accept this contention. Rule 4.2 deals with a peculiar situation where an employee seeks premature retirement. It is intended to confine the benefit to such an employee. Rule 4.2 (4) confers special benefit to handicapped person or a widow. It cannot be controlled or regulated by Rule 4.2 or for that matter any other rule which prescribes maximum pensionable period of 33 years. Assuming a situation, where a handicapped employee has served for the complete period of 33 years and has earned maximum pension, he is still to be granted the benefit of Rule 4.2 (4) as it is not controlled by the previous rules from the very language of the rules 4.2 (4), it is apparent that this rule has to operate independent of other rules. Otherwise, the rule will be rendered otios. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to grant additional benefit of five years service to the petitioner for purposes of determination of his superannuation pension in addition to 23 years service rendered by him in the State of Punjab. CWP No. 9171 of 1991(O&M) -7- Let the retiral benefits of the petitioner be re-determined and paid, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 31.5.2011. lucky Whether to be reported? Yes.