69 n4 1 CWP No6126 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No6126 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION November 162011 Mukhtiar Singh Petitioner versus Gurnanak Dev University Amritsar through its Vice 1 Chancellor eenRespondent 0 0 CORAM HONBLE MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present l MrVKSandhir Advocate for the C5 petltloner I Mr e K S Rekhi Advocate for the respondent Z DAYA CHAUDHARYJ I The first and forenost question ln the present C3 Z writ petition 1S that as to whether the remployment of CO military pensioner ln civil loyment can put embargo 111 vm the matter of calculating and computingthe pension for his Z new servlce separately or the pension of new service and 0 old service should be coined for the purpose of one servlCS e This writ petition raises a questlon 111 regard to grant of two pensions separately The facts relevant to the question may be briefly stated The petitioner lS an ex servlcema He joined the respondent University as Security Guard On 26101987 and continued upto 3172006 Anita 2014.03.11 15: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 70 CWP No6126 of 2009 2 L On attaining the age of superannuation he was retired and his monthly pension was sanctioned to the tune of Rs3101oer month with prevailing deamess allowance and other benefits The said pension was converted into comnuted value of pension and therefore net pension payable to the petitioner ln the month of Septenber 2008 came to Rs23491 per month However without issuing a r any show cause notice or order the pension of the 0 petitioner was reduced to Rs793 per month The said 0 pensionwas reduced with a rider to recover an amount of 5 I Rs000 per month due to excess payment Approaching Z tlme and again to the University did not fall on the deaf ears of the authorities and therefore he is constrained Ct et to approachthis Court with a grievance that the pension I shall be calculated separately by the University and Z recovery so ordered cannot be made because no fraud or 00 e1 has ever been played by the petitioner W7 Z The claim of the petitioner was contested by the 11 respondents The orders impugnedherein are defended and on that basis it has been claimed that the military pensionreceived by the petitioner was to be deducted from the total pension Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the military pension cannot be deducted from the pension assessed by the University On that basis it has been Anita 2014.03.11 15: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 71 A CWPNo6126 of 2009 3 b argued that the petitioner 1S entitled to military pension as well as pension for service rendered to the University In support of his arnts leamed counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a junt rendered in tml Sinqh ve njab Aaricultural University Ludhina md another 200931 SCT 729 Placing reliance on Rule 722 of the Punjab 1 r civil Services Rules or short the Rulesl learned 1 0 counsel for the respondent argues that the military C I pensionis to be deducted from the pension for service C5 I rendered to the University as it is to be counted as one Z servlce After hearing learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the present petition desenres to be I t3 allowed Z For the sake of convenience it is relevant to Ctl reproducethe Rule 722 of the Rules as under 7 Z Rule 722 Except as provided in section II a Om employee who have been discharged with pension 1S subsequently remployed may not count his new service for a separate penslOn Pensiorif anyl 1S admissible only for the new servlce combinedwith the old the whole being counted as one service Il Anita 2014.03.11 15: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 72 CWP No6126 of 2009 1 4 4 I According to the said Rule the military penSlOn e lS to be deducted from the total pension of new servlce In the present case the respondentJniversity ln consonance with the said Rule has fixed the pension of the petitioner However the said Rule 1S applicable in the case of civil employmentand not ln the case of militaly 1 pensloner The argument of learned counsel for the 0 0 petitioner 1S that the case of the petitioner 1S Squarely C0 covered by a judgment rendered ln mllwnt Singh s case I supral has merit inasmuch as while deciding the similar Z controversy Rule 719 has been rightly applied by the Coordinate Bench and therefore the said authority r 1S applicable to the present case also Thus the order I Cl impugnedherein has not been passed in consonance with the Z Rule 719 of the Rules m In view of the aforesaid discussion the present 7 Z petition is allowed The petitioner is held entitled to w the benefit of military pension and pension for the servlce rendered to the University As a consequence thereof the actlon of the respondent 111 effecting the recovery of the amount paid to the petitioner 1S quashed The respondents are directed to refund the amount if already November 16 2011 4DAYA CHAUDHARYI KD JTJDGE S43 c Anita 2014.03.11 15: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document