Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Gurcharan Singh vs Education Deptt., Ut Chandigarh on 6 February, 2025
1- O.A. No. 1554/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Original Application No.060/01554/2017
Pronounced on: 06.02.2025
Reserved on: 07.01.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
Gurcharan Singh son of Sh. Jai Singh age 37 years as J.B.T. Teacher at
Government High School, Daria, Union Territory, Chandigarh (resident
of House No. 1125-G, Saini Vihar, Phase-3, Baltana, Zirakhpur, SAS
Nagar, Mohali, Punjab. (Group-C)
.... Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Rishav Sharma
Versus
1. Chandigarh Administration through Secretary, Education, U.T.
Secretariat, Sector: 9, Chandigarh.
2. The Director Public Instructions (S), Chandigarh Administration, U.T.
Secretariat, Sector: 9, Chandigarh.
3. The Principal, DAV Sr. Sec. School, Mustafabad, Yamunanagar,
Haryana.
... .Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. K.K. Thakur
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 seeking the following relief:
i) That the respondents be directed to count the past service rendered by the applicant on sanctioned aided post in privately managed Govt. aided School from 31.03.2001 to 18.04.2007, for all intents and purposes including for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits by extending the benefit of various judgements rendered in para No. 4 & 5.2- O.A. No. 1554/2017
(ii) That the applicant be held entitled to all consequential benefits/ relief, in the interest of justice.
2. The facts of the case, is brief, are that the applicant initially was appointed on the duly sanctioned post of J.B.T. Teacher in the Dev Nagri Primary School, Mustafabad, Tehsil Yamunanagar, District Ambala, Haryana in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-125-7000 by the Govt. of Haryana under the Grant-in-Aid Scheme, vide letter dated 02.08.2002 (Annexure A-2). The said school is junior wing of DAV Sr. Sec. School, Mustafabad, Yamunanagar, Haryana and is permanently recognized and Govt. aided school receiving 75% grant-in-aid from Education Department, Government of Haryana. In terms of notified Rules called the Haryana Aided Schools (Special Pension and Contributory Provident Fund) Rules, 2001, the post on which the applicant worked was/is a pensionable one. These Rules are applicable to employees working on "aided sanctioned post" and as per Rule 2(b) 'aided sanctioned post" means the post for which grant-in-aid is allowed by the Education Department Haryana. As per Rule 4 of the said Rules, the following retirement benefits shall be admissible under these rules, namely (1) Pension:(a) Superannuation Pension; (b) Invalid Pension; (c) Compensation Pension; (d) Voluntary Retirement Pension/ Compulsory Retirement Pension; (2) Death-Cum-Retirement- Gratuity; (3) Service-Gratuity; (4) Family-Pension.
3. The respondent No. 2 invited applications for various posts including posts of JBT Teachers in the pay scale of Rs. 4550-7220, vide newspaper advertisement in June, 2002(Annexure A-4). The applicant being eligible applied for the same through proper channel. The Dev Nagri Primary School issued NOC dated 05.07.2002 giving permission 3- O.A. No. 1554/2017 to applicant to apply for the post of J.B.T. in Chandigarh Administration and it was mentioned therein that in case the applicant is appointed in Chandigarh Administration then he will be relieved immediately from his post as per rules, provided he hands over the entire charge to the Incharge of School (Annexure A-5).
4. The applicant was ultimately appointed in Chandigarh Administration as JBT Teacher in the grade of Rs. 4550- 7220 vide Appointment Order dated 26.03.2007 (Annexure A-6) and was posted at Govt. High School, Daria vide Order dated 16.04.2007 (Annexure A-
7). He informed his School about his appointment and submitted technical resignation on 18.04.2007 (Αnnexure A-9). He was relieved from the Dev Nagri Primary School vide certificate dated 18.04.2007 (Annexure A-8). Thereafter, he joined the services at Govt. High School, Daria on 19.04.2007 (FN) (Annexure A-10). He successfully completed his probation period of two years on 19.4.2009 (Annexure A-11).
5. The applicant submitted that on coming to know that after a long time his service book has been sent on 24.09.2016 by the DEEO Yamunanagar to the Chandigarh Administration, he requested on 30.09.2016 through the Head master of School to protect his pay and other financial benefits under rule 3.12 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II along with pensionary benefits (Annexure A-12). The Director School Education returned the case file of applicant to the DEO with remarks that the matter is under consideration of the Finance Department, Chandigarh Administration vide letter dated 09.11.2016 (Annexure A-15). The applicant submitted reminder on 11.01.2017 and 06.07.2017 to the Director School Education (Annexure A-16 and 4- O.A. No. 1554/2017 A-17). No response/decision has been received by the applicant till date.
6. The contention of the applicant is that the action of the respondents in not counting the past services of applicant on sanctioned aided post in privately managed Govt. aided School from 31.03.2001 to 18.04.2007, for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits, is not only arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory but also against the settled law and in violation of Article14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He contended that the question whether service rendered in Govt. Aided Privately Managed Schools is countable towards pensionary benefits on retirement from Govt. Service, has already been decided in affirmative by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide Judgment dated 22.07.2009 in the case of Vijay Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, 2009(4) SCT 33 (Annexure A-18). Reliance has also been placed on a judgments of the Hon‟ble High court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Sukhdev Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others (CWP No. 14238 of 1991 decided on 10.03.2010) and Charan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others (CWP No. 12432 of 2004 decided on 11.07.2006), affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by dismissing the SLP No. 3209 of 2007, filed by the respondents, on 05.11.2007 and a judgment in the case of J.K. Sharma and another vs. The State Of Punjab and Others decided on 13.10.2009 (C.W.P. No. 7520 of 2008) (Annexures A-19, A-20, A-21 and A-22 respectively).
7. The respondents no. 1 and 2 filed written statement contesting the claim of the applicant. It has been stated therein while working as primary teacher in Dev Nagri Primary School, Yamunanagar, Haryana 5- O.A. No. 1554/2017 his services were governed by the scheme known a as "Haryana Aided Schools (Special Pension and Contributory Provident) Rules 2001", which provides that "an employee shall be entitled for pension under these rules only after he completes 10 years qualifying service". It has been submitted that the case of the applicant could have been covered for pension under the Haryana Aided Schools (Special Pension and Contributory Provident) Rules 2001, if he had rendered 10 years service in the Dev Nagri Primary School, Yamunanagar, Haryana. But, he has not been covered under the said scheme as his service tenure from 31.03.2001 to 18.04.2007 is less than period of 10 years. Further, he is appointed on regular basis as JBT teacher on 19.04.2007 and covered under New Pension Scheme (Not under regular Pension Rules) as applicable to the UT, Chandigarh employees who has appointed on or after 01.01.2004.
8. The respondents further submitted that the applicant has been appointed as a JBT by way of direct appointment under the Chandigarh Administration on 19.04.2007 and he joined the same 19.04.2007 and the appointment letter nowhere stipulates that his old pay will be protected or the previous service will be counted towards pensionary benefits under the Chandigarh Administration. It was a case of fresh appointment and the advertisement for the posts also did not lay down extension of any such benefits. The applicant with open eyes accepted the terms and conditions of his appointment. The service conditions of U.T. employees are the same as those of the Punjab Government employees as per notification of Govt. of India dated 13.01.1992.
9. It has been further submitted that the main plea of the applicant to count the past service rendered by the applicant on sanctioned 6- O.A. No. 1554/2017 aided post in privately managed Govt. Aided School before joining the Chandigarh Administration for the period from 31.03.2001 to 18.04.2007 for the purpose of pensionary & retiral benefits is ill founded and does not merit any consideration on the following grounds:-
i) That the U.T. employees are governed by Punjab rules. In the State of Punjab, service of other States/U.Ts/Central Govt. is not counted for fixation of pay or for pensioary benefits. Moreover the pay-scale of both the posts was also different.
ii) That the word "Government" mentioned in the rule 3.12, 3.44 or any other rule of Punjab Civil service Rules, Vol.I or Vo.II refers to the Punjab Government and not any other State Government or U.T. Similarly in the case of Chandigarh Administration, Govt. means the Chandigarh Administration. This has been so held in a number of decisions given by the Hon'ble Panjab and Haryana High Court. As such, service of other State or Central Govt. is not to be counted for fixation of pay or pension.
10. The respondents have placed reliance upon judgments of the Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the cases of Kamarjit Kaur Vs State of Panjab (CWP No 9688 of 2005 decided on 1.4.2016), Jagtar Singh Vs State of Panjab (CWP No. 9064 of 2010 decided on 03.05.2013, Karanjit Singh Vs State of Panjab (CWP No. 1450 of 2013 decided on 6.10.2014) and Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Panjab (CWP No. 3889 of 2006 decided on 18.12.2007) (Annexure R-1,R-2, R-3 and R-4).
7- O.A. No. 1554/2017
11. The respondent no. 3 filed short reply stating therein that the applicant had applied through proper channel and the answering respondent had issued no objection certificate to him. He was appointed in Education Department Chandigarh Administration as JBT Teacher vide appointment order no. 26.03.2007. Pursuant to his appointment the applicant was relieved from the answering respondent vide certificate dated 18.04.2007. He submitted technical resignation on 18.04.2007 and joined in Education Department Chandigarh Administration on 19.04.2007. He worked with the answering respondent w.e.f. 31.03.2001 to 18.04.2007 and thereafter he joined in Chandigarh Administration on the very next day, therefore, the answering respondent has no role to play in the instant case.
12. We have gone through the pleadings, perused the material available on record and considered the contentions of both sides.
13. The issue that arises for consideration before us is as to whether the service rendered by the applicant in Dev Nagri Primary School Yamunanagar, aided by the Haryana Government, is countable towards pensionary/retiral benefits?
14. The admitted facts are that the before joining the Education Department, U.T., Chandigarh, the applicant served as JBT teacher, the post sanctioned by the Government of Haryana under grant in aid, in Dev Nagri Primary School, Yamunanagar, Haryana with effect from 31.03.2001 to 18.04.2007. The opposition to the claim of the applicant by the respondents is that since the applicant had rendered only 07 years of service in Dev Nagri Primary School Yamunanagar, which is less than the period of 10 years to become eligible for pensionary benefits. From the perusal of reply preferred by the first employer of the 8- O.A. No. 1554/2017 applicant i.e. respondent no. 3, it is seen that they admitted that the applicant had applied through proper channel having „No Objection Certificate‟ issued by them, in response to the advertisement issued by respondent no. 2 in the month of June, 2002 (Annexure A-4). On being selected by respondent no. 2 as JBT Teacher, the applicant was relieved by respondent no. 3 on 18.04.2007 and he immediately joined the Government High School, Daria on 19.04.2007 (Annexure A-10). Having seen the sequence of events, it is established that the applicant had applied through proper channel after taking NOC from respondent no. 3 and joined services under respondent no. 2 without there being any break in service. In order to join service with Respondent No. 2, the applicant submitted technical resignation to the competent authority of respondent no. 3 which was duly accepted by them. It is noticed here that had the applicant continued to serve with respondent no. 3, he would have been eligible for pension and other pensionary benefits at the time of his superannuation from service under respondent no. 3. The applicant has been appointed by respondent no. 2 by way of competition on regular post of JBT Teacher. Therefore, there is no logic to ignore the past service of seven years of the applicant with respondent no. 3 for the purpose of counting for pensionary and other retiral benefit.
15. The respondents no. 1 and 2 have contended that the UT employees are governed by the Punjab Rules, therefore the services rendered in other States and UTs is not countable for pensionary benefits. This is also an undisputed fact that the post of JBT Teacher in both the departments i.e. the Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3 is pensionable post. The identical controversy came before the Hon‟ble 9- O.A. No. 1554/2017 High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Vijay Singh case (supra) which was allowed in favour of the employee and it is held as under:-
"8. It is, thus, to be seen whether this service now can be excluded for the purpose of grant of pension. If the petitioner had continued to serve on an aided post in a private school, he would have been entitled to count his service rendered therein for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. Would that service be lost to him for the purpose of pension be-cause he has subsequently gone on to join a Government job, which is again a pensionable one? If the result is allowed to operate in this manner, it will be unfair, inequitable and harsh. The ratio of law as laid down in the case of Harnandan, Singh, Charan Singh and Chander Sain (supra) in this background would apply to the facts of the present case. Similar view has clearly been taken by the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jawahar Lal Sharma Supra. In fact, the Division Bench of this Court in Charan Singh's case (supra) has observed that service rendered by a teacher in private school receiving aid is made pensionable and as such this service cannot be ignored for grant of pension. The same is the situation here. Accordingly, I am of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for counting his service rendered on aided post in a private school for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits."
16. In the case of Sukhdev Singh (supra), the Hon‟ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana while allowing the appeal of the petitioners therein held as under:-
"9. Rule 3.16 of the CSR provides that 'service' of a Government Employee does not qualify for pension unless he is appointed and his duties and pay are regulated by the Government or under the conditions determined by the Government. Note-I thereto excludes certain services including of a Municipality or the Grant- in-Aid Schools and Institutions, for the purposes of pension, Rule 3.17 contemplates that an employee holding substantively a permanent post on the date of his retirement, would be entitled 10- O.A. No. 1554/2017 to pension after including the 'temporary' or 'officiating' service rendered by him, towards 'qualifying service', except such temporary or officiating services in non-pensionable establishment or when it is paid from the contingencies. Initially, the period of service rendered in the work-charged establishment was also excluded for the purpose of pension but the provision to that effect was struck down by a Full Bench of this Court in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab and others, (AIR 1988, Punjab & Haryana, 265).
10. Rule 3.17A provides that all services rendered on establishment, interrupted or continuous, shall count as qualifying service except in the cases mentioned below, including the service rendered in work-charged establishment or paid from contingencies. Rule 3.30 describes the 'service' which satisfies the conditions for its inclusion as a 'qualifying service' and it is apparent from Rule 3.31 that those services which are paid from the Government Revenue qualify for pension. To be more explicit, the service not paid from the Government Revenue or paid from the funds in respect to which the Government holds the position of a Trustee or paid by fees levied by law or under the authority of the Government or by Commission or by the grant in accordance with law or custom of a tenure in land, or of any source of income or right to collect money or paid from local funds, does not qualify for pension. Rules 3.16, 3.17, 3.17A, 3.30 and 3.31 (relevant extracts only) read as follows :-
"3.16. (a) The service of a Government employee does not qualify unless he is appointed and his duties and pay are regulated by the Government or under conditions determined by the Government.
XX Note 1: The following are examples of Government employees excluded from pension by this rule:-
(1) Employees of a Municipality;
(2) Employees of grant-in-aid schools and in-stitutions; (3) Subordinates appointed by Treasurers on their own responsibility;11- O.A. No. 1554/2017
(4) Service on a establishment paid from a Contract Establishment Allowance, with the detailed distribution of which the Government does not interfere, whether such contract allowance is a fixed amount or consists of fees. (5) Service on an establishment paid from the Household Allowance of the Governor."
'3.17. If an employee was holding substantively a permanent post on the date of his retirement, his temporary or officiating service under the State Government followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or another post, shall count in full as qualifying service except in respect of :-
i) period of temporary or officiating service in non pensionable establishment;
ii) periods of service in work-charged establishment and
(ii) periods of service paid from contingencies"
The Hon‟ble High Court has also placed reliance upon various judicial pronouncements of the Hon‟ble Apex Court as under:-
"16. In State of Punjab and others v. Dev Dutt Kaushal and others, 1995(4) S.C.T. 575: AIR 1996 SC 85, the pensionable service rendered - in a private college which was taken over by the - Government and the teachers working therein were absorbed in the Government service, was held to be 'qualifying service' for the purpose of - pension under the Government.
17. In Chander Sain v. State of Haryana, 1994(2) S.C.T. 102: 1994 (1) SCC 750, also the service rendered in a Government- Aided-Private College which was later on taken over by the State of Haryana, was held to be countable towards pension, keeping in view the terms and conditions laid down while taking over the said - College.
18. In Charan Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2006 (4) S.C.T. 151: 2006 (6) SLR 624, a Division Bench of this Court took the same view and placed reliance on the above-cited two decision of the Supreme Court."12- O.A. No. 1554/2017
17. The respondents have also rejected the claim of the applicant on the ground that since he had joined the respondents no. 1 and 2 after 01.01.2004, therefore, his service conditions were governed by the rules and regulation of the respective management of respondent no. 3 by virtue of which it cannot be said that the applicant has joined service with respondent no. 2 prior to 01.01.2004, therefore, the claim of the applicant is liable to be rejected.
18. Another plea taken by the respondents is that since the applicant is appointed to the post of JBT Teacher on regular basis on 19.04.2007, therefore, he is governed under New Pension Scheme as applicable to the employees of U.T. Chandigarh, who have joined on or after 01.01.2004. From the perusal of material available on record, we find that the advertisement to the post of JBT Teacher was advertised by respondent no. 2 vide Annexure A-4 dated June, 2002, however, the entire selection process completed on 29.03.2007 (Annexure A-6). Thus, the respondents took almost six years to complete the recruitment process. The New Pension Scheme was adopted by respondent no. 3 w.e.f. 21.01.2006, however, the initial appointment of the applicant with the respondent no. 3 is from 31.03.2001, therefore, he was entitled for the pension and family pension under Haryana Aided Schools (Special Pension and Contributory Fund) Rules, 2001. Since the applicant was appointed at the time the Old Pension Scheme was applicable, therefore, he is entitled to get benefit of Old Pension Scheme as there is no break of service between first appointment with respondent no. 3 and re-appointment with respondents no. 1 and 2.
13- O.A. No. 1554/2017
19. In an identical issue, this Tribunal vide order dated 29.11.2024 in a bunch matter with lead Dheerja Sharma Vs. Chandigarh Administration and Others (O.A. No. 1311/2017) held the applicants entitled for pay protection and counting of previous service for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits. The relevant paras of the decision aforementioned are extracted hereunder:-
"11. The second claim of the applicant is for counting of service rendered by her in previous organization i.e. KVS for pensionary benefits. The undisputed facts are that the KVS is an autonomous organization fully financed (100%) from the consolidated fund of Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, New Delhi and pensionable to all the KVS employees as in KVS the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 are applicable to the KVS employees. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that Punjab Civil Service Rules, 1970 are applicable to the employees of Chandigarh Administration as per the notification dated 13.01.1992 issued by the Government of India. Learned counsel for the applicant has stressed upon Rules 3.44 and 3.17 A of Punjab Civil Service Rules (in short PCS Rules) Volume-II and Rule 7.5 (2) of PCS Rules Volume I. For the sake of convenience, the same are reproduced as under:-
"Rule 3.17-A (1)Subject to the provisions of rule 4.23 and other rules and except in the cases mentioned below, all service rendered on establishment, interrupted or continuous, shall count as qualifying service:-
i) Service rendered in work-charged establishment.
(ii) Service paid from contingencies:
Provided that after the 1" January, 1973 half of the service paid from contingencies will be allowed to count towards pension at the time of absorption in regular employment subject to the following conditions:-
(a) Service paid from contingencies should have been in a job involving whole time employment (and not part-time or for a portion of the day).
(b) Service paid from contingencies should have been in a type of work or job for which regular post could have been sanctioned, e.g. Malis, Chowkidars, Khalasis, etc.
(c) The service should have been one for which the payment is made either on monthly or daily rates computed and paid on a monthly basis and which though not analogous to the regular scale of pay should bear some relation in the matter of pay to 14- O.A. No. 1554/2017 those being paid for similar jobs being performed by staff in regular establishment.
"Rule 3.44 When a pension is payable partly by Government and partly by a Local Fund, the Local Fund concerned may pay the capitalized value (calculated on the basis of the Table of Commutation values for pensions applicable to the pensioners, increased by 10 per cent) of its share of the pension to Government which will thereupon accept liability for the payment of the entire pension."
"Forfeiture of Service on Resignation Rule 7.5 (1) Xxxxxx (2) A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies for pension."
From the bare reading of rule 3.17 A PCS Rules, there is not an iota of doubt that service of an employee prior to resignation, which has been rendered with a view to take appointment in another pensionable service under the Government, shall be qualified for pension. Further, the Rule 7.5 of PCS Rules prescribes the effect of resignation on the status of past service rendered by an employee. The sub rule 2 categorically stipulates that a resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up another appointment under the Government, where service qualifies for pension. The applicant herein has applied to the post of Mistress (Social Studies) in UT Administration through proper channel, having qualified the examination and joined after tendering technical resignation, which was accepted by the Competent Authority. The nature and duties of both the posts are same and both are pensionable posts.
12. From the perusal of material available on file, we noticed that the respondent no. 2, while sending reference dated 07.08,2015 (Annexure A-20) to the A.G. (Audit) Chandigarh, has admitted the claim of the applicant on the strength of Rule 3.12 of Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol-I, Part-I. The claim of the applicant for counting of previous service in KVS for the purpose of pensionary benefits has not been objected by the first employer i.e. KVS Chandigarh. Further, in response to the reference made by respondent no. 2, the Principal Accountant General, UT Chandigarh advised the respondent no. 2 to deal with the issue as per the terms and conditions as envisaged. The Principal Accountant General neither rejected nor opposed the claim of the applicant for counting of past service for pensionary benefits. Even the previous employer of the applicant i.e. KVS has never objected the claim of the applicant and rather requested the respondents no. 1 and 2 to provide information/documents and name of authority in whose favour the pro-rata pension liability in respect of applicant to be remitted.
15- O.A. No. 1554/2017
13. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of J.K. Sharma (supra) while allowing the petition seeking benefit of past service rendered in Punjab State Electricity Board as qualifying service for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits, has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.L. Marwah (supra), (1987) 4 SCC 31 wherein it has been observed as under:-
"8. There is no dispute that the ICAR though it is a body registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960, is a body which is sponsored, financed and controlled by the Central Government. There has been a continuous mobility of personnel between Central Government departments and autonomous bodies, like the ICAR both ways and the government thought, and rightly so, that it would not be just to deprive an employee who is later on absorbed in the service of the autonomous body, like the ICAR the benefit of the service rendered by him earlier in the Central Government for purposes of computation of pension and similarly the benefit of service rendered by an employee who is later on absorbed in the Central Government service the benefit of the service rendered by him earlier in the autonomous body for purposes of computation of pension. If that was the object of issuing the notification then the benefit of such notification should be extended to all pensioners who had rendered service earlier in the Central Government or in the autonomous body as the case may be with effect from the date of the said government order"
14. The learned counsel for the respondents has also objected to the claim of the applicant on the ground that there is delay of more than 13 years in raising grievance, therefore, the O.A. is barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The said plea of the respondent is wrong and misconceived as the applicant immediately after joining the U.T. Administration on 08.02.2002, made representation on 19.04.2002, through proper channel, seeking benefit of counting of past service for the purpose of fixation of pay and pay protection which the respondent no. 2 forwarded to respondent no. 1. There is nothing on record, which could indicate that the claim of the applicant has been rejected by the respondents.
15. Moreover, we find that the Government of Punjab has issued instructions dated 14.05.1986 on the subject which reads as under:-
"Subject:-Counting of service for the purpose pension of the employee of the State Government and State Autonomous Bodies seeking absorption in Central Autonomous Bodies and Central Govt./Central Autonomous Bodies respectively and vice versa.
I am directed to refer to the subject cited above and to state that Government of Punjab has been considering in consultation with the Government of India, the question of counting of service rendered by the State Government Employee under the State Govt. before their absorption in Central Autonomous Bodies and service rendered by the employees of the State Autonomous bodies under State 16- O.A. No. 1554/2017 Autonomous before their absorption in the Central Government /Central Autonomous Bodies for pensionery benefits and vice-versa. The matter has been considered carefully and the Governor of Punjab is pleased to decide that the case of State Govt. employee going over to the Central Autonomous bodies and that of employee of the State Autonomous bodies moving to Central Govt/Central autonomous bodies or vice versa may be regulated as follows:
(a) In case Post/serving is pensionable in the new organisation (1) Where an employee born on pensionable establishment is allowed to be absorbed in such an organization, the service rendered by him/her shall be allowed to be counted towards pension under the new organization irrespective of the fact whether the employee was temporary or permanent in the old organization. The pensionery benefits will however accrue only if the temporary service is followed by confirmation. If he/she retires as a temporary employee in the new organization he/she will get terminal benefits as are normally available to temporary employees.
The Government/Autonomous bodies will discharge their pension liability by paying in lump sum as a one time payment the prorate. Pension/ service gratuity and death cum retirement gratuity for the service up to the date of absorption in autonomous bodies/ Government as the case may be. Prorata pension will be determined with reference to the commutation table in chapter XI of the Punjab civil Services Rules Volume II as amended from time to time."
16. The judgements relied upon by the respondents are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because none of the case deals the situation of counting of service rendered by the applicant in KVS, a Central Autonomous Body with service under Chandigarh Administration. In the case of Kamarjit Kaur (supra), the prayer was to club service spent in JNV Samiti with service under Punjab Government (Smiti) and not of clubbing service rendered in Central Autonomous Body with service under Chandigarh Administration. Moreover, the petitioner therein was not given benefit because she had not disclosed the information as to whether or not she had received the terminal benefits like death-cum retirement gratuity, leave encashment, amounts lying in Contributory Provident Fund due from her previous employer nor has she impleaded the said authorities in the array of parties for them to confirm or answer the petition on merits. The petitioner therein had also failed to mention any policy/instructions according to which her claim for pay protection can be covered, which is not the position in the present case as the Chandigarh Administration Finance Department vide No. 65/1/42/FII(12)/2009/1633 dated 03.03.2010 has directed all Administrative Secretaries and Head of Departments in Chandigarh Administration to regulate further course of action in relation the cases regarding counting of past 17- O.A. No. 1554/2017 service in Central Government/State Government in the light of the advice of the Government of India letter dated 16.12.2009.
17. In the case of Jagtar Singh (supra), the prayer was to club service spent in CRPF with service under Punjab Armed Police (PAP) and not of clubbing service rendered in Central Autonomous Body with service under Chandigarh Administration. In the case of Karamjit Singh (supra), the prayer was to club service spent in U.T. Chandigarh Administration with service under Punjab Government and not of clubbing service rendered in Central Autonomous Body with service under Chandigarh Administration. In the case of Jarnail Singh (supra), the prayer was to club service spent in U.T. Chandigarh Administration with service under Punjab Government and not of clubbing service rendered in Central Autonomous Body with service under Chandigarh Administration. Thus, the judgments relied upon by the respondents cannot be made applicable in the present case being distinguishable on facts.
18. In view of the discussion herein above, the Original Applications succeed. The applicants are held entitled for pay protection in the new organization and counting of their previous service rendered in the KVS as qualified for pensionary benefits. The needful be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs."
20. In view of the fore going discussion, the applicant herein is held entitled for counting of his past service towards qualifying service for pensionary benefits under the old pension scheme. The needful be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Original Application stands allowed. No costs.
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (SURESH KUMAR BATRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
„mw‟