Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sudershan Kumar Verma vs State Of Pb. And Ors on 27 July, 2015
Author: Deepak Sibal
Bench: Deepak Sibal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.229
CWP No.2667 of 2007 (O&M)
Date of decision: 27.07.2015
Sudershan Kumar Verma ....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
Present: Mr. R. Kartikeya, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sushant Maini, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)
Through the present petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to count the service rendered by him in Military Engineering Services prior to joining the services of the Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') towards qualifying service for pension .
Learned counsel for the petitioner and the contesting respondent No.2 are ad idem that the issue raised in the present petition has already been considered and decided in favour of the petitioner by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.1247 of 2011 titled as 'Punjab State Electricity Board vs. Er. Gurpal Singh and others', wherein it has been held as under:-
"From a bare perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge it is evident that counsel for the respondent fairly conceded that the issue has been answered by this Court in the case of Er. Ramesh Chander Mahajan v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 12278 of 2010, decided on5.10.2010). Accordingly, the learned Single Judge disposed of the JYOTI SHARMA 2015.07.31 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this document CWP No.2667 of 2007 (O&M) -2- writ petition in terms of the judgment rendered in Er. Ramesh Chander Mahajan's case (supra).
It is pertinent to mention that in Ramesh Chander Mahajan's case (supra) the learned Single Judge disposed of a bunch of writ petitions by placing reliance on two Division Bench judgments of this Court rendered in the cases of The Punjab State Electricity Board v. The State of Punjab and others (LPA No. 115 of 2006, decided on 12.9.2008 and S.C. Kapuria v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, 2007 (4) SCT, 755 as well as well as the judgment rendered in the case of Union of India v. State of Punjab and others, 2009 (3) SCT 597, holding that the issue stands concluded and the appellant-Board is under obligation to count the previous service rendered by employees in the Government of India or any other organisation. The learned Single Judge issued 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."JYOTI SHARMA 2015.07.31 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this document CWP No.2667 of 2007 (O&M) -3-
The only submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant-Board is that the appellant Board should not be compelled to make payment to the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 first and then recover it from the Central Government or any other agency later. However, we do not find any substance in the aforesaid submission because the directions are based on the Government instructions dated 31.3.1982, which have been duly adopted by the appellant-Board on 25.11.1985. Moreover, an individual employee is not expected to wait for the financial benefits which are payable to such retiree. Therefore, it has been rightly directed by the learned Single Judge that the payment may be made to the writ petitioner- respondent No. 1 first and the same may be recovered from the Union of India. We find nothing extra ordinary in the aforesaid direction which may warrant interference of this Court. The instant appeal is without merit and, thus, liable to be dismissed.
As a sequel to the above discussion, this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed." The SLP No.23533 of 2012 filed against the above referred order has been dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 14.02.2014.
In view of the above the writ petition stands allowed with the following directions to the respondent:-
[i] The PSEB (now Punjab State Power Corporation Limited) shall be entitled to verify the service said to have been rendered by the petitioner 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 JYOTI SHARMA 2015.07.31 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this document CWP No.2667 of 2007 (O&M) -4- 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 petitioner and intimate the PSEB (now Punjab State Power Corporation Limited) in this regard and reimburse to the PSEB their proportionate share in lump sum towards the pension and other retiral benefits payable to the petitioner within a period of six months.
(DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE July 27, 2015 Jyoti 1 JYOTI SHARMA 2015.07.31 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this document