Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdev Singh vs Punjab State Power Corporation … on 7 April, 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 13132 of 2020
DATE OF DECISION:07.04.2021
Sukhdev Singh
…Petitioner
versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited &Anr.
…Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present : Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, Advocate
For respondent PSPCL.
(Presence marked through Video Conferencing)
ARUN MONGA, J.
Grievance of the petitioner, while invoking the writ jurisdiction
of this Court under Articles 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India is qua
impugned order dated 18.03.2013(Annexure P-3) whereby his claim for
pension has been rejected on the ground that he does not have qualifying
service of 20 years. Petitioner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari to quash the impugned order claiming that the same has been
passed erroneously by overlooking the material fact that he had rendered
qualifying service of 24 years after adding his work charged service period,
immediately prior to his regularization.
2. Brief factual narrative first, which is not in dispute. The
petitioner was appointed as Lorry Cleaner in the respondent Corporation on
work charge basis on 28.09.1976. His services were regularized on
18.08.1984. The petitioner request requested/offered to deposit the share of
EPF along with interest from 01.03.1976 to 17.08.1984 to get the benefit of
1 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 06:19:20 :::
service rendered on work charge basis towards pensionary benefits. The said
request of the petitioner was accepted and as directed, petitioner deposited
an amount of Rs.11,700/- for reckoning of his service in the light of circular
issued by the respondent Corporation. On 22.08.2001, petitioner gave 3
months, notice and sought premature retirement. His request was accepted
and petitioner was allowed to retire voluntarily on 31.12.2001. He was given
benefit of leave encashment. However, he was not granted any pension. His
request/claim for seek pension was rejected by the respondent vide
impugned order dated 18.03.2013. Hence, the writ petition.
3. In the return filed on behalf of respondent, there is a
conspicuous and stoic silence, perhaps deliberate, with respect to the specific
averments of the petitioner that he had rendered total 24 years of service
after computing work charge period prior to his regularization. It would not
be out of place to reproduce the relevant specific assertion of the petitioner
contained in para 6 of the petition and the corresponding response qua the
same by the respondent PSPC. The same read as below:-
Para No.6 of writ petition:-
That as enumerated above, the petitioner has done 8 years of
service on the work charge basis and the breaks in the above
said work charge service of 8 years stand condoned by the
respondent department vide Annexure P-2 Supra and the
petitioner after the regularization of his service has also
deposited the amount of Rs.11,700/- as calculation of interest
as towards EPF. Hence, the respondent department has to
consider this period of 8 years in counting the total qualifying
service rendered by the petitioner for the purpose of pensionary
benefits and by adding these 8 years, the total service rendered
by the petitioner comes out to be 24 years and hence as per
Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume II the petitioner is entitled
to receive the pension.”
2 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 06:19:21 :::
Response of respondent PSPCL to the above para:-
That the contents of para 6 are wrong and hence denied. It is
further submitted that the petitioner has rendered a regular
service of 17 years 4 months and 20 days, which is less than 20
years of qualifying service for the purpose of pension.
4. No replication to the written statement has been preferred by
the petitioner as the same was not deemed necessary by him. It was rightly
so, in view of the tacit admission by the respondent PSPCL with regard to
his having rendered 24 years of service by including the service of work
charge period.
5. The aforesaid being the factual position, stand taken by PSPCL
that the petitioner was rightly retired prematurely as he had rendered
“regular” service of 17 years 4 months and 20 days which is less than the
requisite 20 years of qualifying service for the purpose of pension is quite
evasive and tantamount to an admission of the averments in the petitioner
that the petitioner had done 8 years of service on the work charge basis and
the breaks in the above said work charge service of 8 years stand condoned
by the respondent department and the petitioner after the regularization of
his service has also deposited the amount of Rs.11,700/- as calculation of
interest as towards EPF. To be noted, the respondent PSPCL has deliberately
used the word “regular” service so as to avoid making a direct admission qua
the requisite total service being 24 years.
6. As regards the question of reckoning the service for work
charge period rendered immediately prior to the regularization of the
services of the petitioner, the same are to be undoubtedly counted towards
pensionary benefits. The position in law was settled at rest and is no more
3 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 06:19:21 :::
res integra. Reference may be had to Full Bench judgment of this Court
rendered in Kesar Chand Vs. State of Punjab1
7. In view thereof, there is no gainsaying to reiterate that any
employee who has rendered service on work charge/ adhoc basis, is entitled
to count the period of such service to compute the period of such service
towards total length of qualifying service for pensionary benefits.
8. In fact, it is rather intriguing that respondent PSPCL should
drive the petitioner to needless litigation in as much as a similarly situated
employee who had earlier approached this Court for grant of benefit of work
charge service while reckoning qualifying service/ total length of service for
pensionary benefits was given the benefit thereof in a case of Om Parkash
Vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited &Ors.2. Speaking for this
Court, my learned Brother Kuldip Singh, J(as he then was) opined as
below:-
“Now, the question would arise as to whether the work charge service
rendered by the petitioner which comes to approx. 9 years 10 months
and 9 days is liable to be counted for grant of pensionary benefits to
the petitioner or not?
7. The controversy has already been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case titled as Punjab State Electricity Board and another v.
Narata Singh and another, 2010 (3) SLR 202. It is to be noted that
previously the Bhakra Dam Project and BSL Nangal were under the
Irrigation Department of Punjab Government. The facts of the case
are identical with the present case. In the said case, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court while considering the SLP against the Division Bench
judgment of this Court vide which the prayer of the employee was
allowed, observed as under:-
Xxx
xxxx
1
1988(5) SLR 27.
2
2017(4) SCT 43
4 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 06:19:21 :::
13. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out the
finding recorded by the Division Bench in the impugned
judgment to the effect that “we are, therefore, clearly of the
opinion that the work charged service of the appellant with the
Board must be counted for determining qualifying service for
the purpose of pension” and argued that the judgment of the
High Court should not be construed to mean as giving direction
to the appellant to include previous service rendered by the
respondent No.1 as work charged employee of the State
Government for pension purposes. So far as this argument is
concerned, it is true that the Division Bench of the High Court
has expressed the above opinion in the impugned judgment.
However, the reference to Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil
Services Rules as well as the Full Bench decision of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab
&Ors. [1988 (5) SLR 27] and speaking order dated November
16, 2005 passed by the Board rejecting the claim of respondent
No.1 makes it abundantly clear that the High Court has
directed the appellants to count the period of service rendered
by the respondent No.1 in work charged capacity with the State
Government for determining qualifying service for the purpose
of pension. Further, the respondent No.1 has been directed to
deposit the amount of Employee’s Contributory Fund which he
had received from the appellants along with interest as per the
directions of the Board before the pension is released to him.
All these directions indicate that the High Court had come to
the conclusion that the period of service rendered by the
respondent No.1 in work charged capacity under the State
Government should be taken into consideration for determining
qualifying service for the purpose of pension. Non-mention of
such direction in the impugned judgment is merely a slip and
the appellants cannot derive any advantage from this.
The said authority is directly attracted in the facts of the present case.
Therefore, the work charge service of the petitioner rendered in
Bhakra Dam Project and BSL Nangal is liable to be counted as
qualifying service for the pension in terms of judgment in the case of
Narata Singh (supra).”
9. I am in respectful agreement with above views expressed by my
Brother Judge. It is, thus, clear as day light that work charge period service
is to be counted towards total length of service for computing qualifying
service for pensionary benefits, in the case of petitioner as well. Needless to
5 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 06:19:21 :::
say that 8 years of work charge service is to be added to 17 years of regular
service and benefit thereof is to be given to the petitioner.
10. The other insipid argument on behalf of respondent PSPCL is
that since petitioner had sought premature retirement without having
rendered 20 years of regular service, therefore, he is not entitled to the
pensionary benefit is also being noted only to be rejected. The said argument
flies in the face of Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement Rules)
1975, particularly Rule 2 thereof, which for ready reference is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
“2. Retiring Pension and gratuity.-
(1) A retiring pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity shall
be granted to a Government employee who retires or is
required to retire under rule 3.
2 (i) While granting proportionate pension and gratuity to an
employee retiring under sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (3) of rule 3,
as the case may be, 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.
(ii) The weightage of five years under clause (i) shall not be
admissible in cases of those Government employees who are
prematurely retired by the appropriate authority in public
interest under sub-rule (1) of rule 3.
(3) The pension and gratuity of the employee retiring under
sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (3) of rule 3, as the case may be, shall
be based on the emoluments as defined in rule 6.19-C and 6.24
of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, and the increase
in his qualifying service under sub-rule (2) shall not entitle him
to any notional fixation of pay for purposes of calculating
pension and gratuity.
(4) The amount of pension to be granted after allowing increase
in the qualifying service under sub-rule (2) shall be subject to
the provisions of rules 2.2 and 6.4 of the Punjab Civil Services
Rules, Volume II.”
6 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 06:19:21 :::
11. A perusal of the above would reveal that having once accepted the
offer of the petitioner to be allowed to retire voluntarily, the respondent cannot
thereafter take a somersault to contend that since he had not completed 20 years
of regular service prior to seeking voluntary retirement, therefore, he was not
entitled to pension. The respondent Corporation is bound by the principle of
estoppel by its own conduct and having once accepted the application for
voluntary retirement, cannot take a U-turn qua the grant of benefit of pension to
which the petitioner is undoubtedly entitled by including the work charge
period service for arriving at the minimum bench mark of total 20 years of
service.
12. As an upshot of the observations and discussion above, writ
petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 18.03.2013 is quashed. It is held that
claim of the petitioner to seek pensionary benefits was wrongly rejected. Writ
of mandamus is issued to the respondents to release the pensionary benefits to
the petitioner by adding period of work charge service rendered by him
immediately prior to his regularization and the consequential benefits arisen
therefrom shall be disbursed to him within a period of 60 days of the petitioner
approaching the competent authority along with web print of the instant order.
Since the petitioner’s pecuniary benefits have been wrongly denied driving him
to needless litigation, he shall also be entitled to compensatory interest @ 8%
per annum on the amount of pecuniary benefits from the due date till actual
payment. Any further delay in payment thereof beyond 60 days granted by this
Court shall entail interest @ 12% to be calculated from the date they fell due
till actual date of payment.
13. Writ petition stands allowed in above terms. No costs.
April 07, 2021 (ARUN MONGA)
Jiten JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 06:19:21 :::
Comments