Punjab-Haryana High Court
Darshan Lal Chhabra vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 28 August, 2014
Author: Jaswant Singh
Bench: Jaswant Singh
CWP 10057/2014(O&M) 1 109
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision:28/08/2014.
Darshan Lal Chhabra
.............Petitioner
v.
State of Haryana and others
.............Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:- Mr.Satbir Gill,Advocate for the petitioner
Jaswant Singh,J.(Oral)
Petitioner was an employee of Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation (HSMITC) when on its closure, he was retrenched w.e.f. 30.6.2002. He had received all his statutory dues on his retrenchment from the said employer regarding his past service. Subsequently, the State Government on humanitarian grounds took a decision to create a source for recruitment/adjustment in other departments of the State Government. It is conceded that for future recruitment 25% of the advertised posts were reserved for recruitment from such retrenched employees. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as an Accountant with the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (HSAMB) on 22.11.2004 as a direct recruit after his fresh selection by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission.
It is evident that the appointment of the petitioner was afresh with his new employer with effect from the said dateRAJINDER althoughPRASHAD JOSHI I attest to the accuracy of this document High Court,Chandigarh.
29.08.2014 11:34 CWP 10057/2014(O&M) 2 109 his source for direct recruitment was the said 25% reserved for retrenched employees, like the petitioner. Petitioner on his attaining the age of superannuation retired w.e.f. 29.2.2012 in the rank of Assistant Secretary with his new employer. He is claiming counting of his previous service w.e.f. 18.12.1983 to 3.6.2002 with HSMITC towards qualifying service for retiral benefits. The same has been declined vide impugned speaking order dated 8.8.2013(P-5).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that similarly situated employees have been granted the benefit of previous service towards counting of qualifying service for pension pursuant to the judgments passed by this Court in Raj Kumar(Retired Patwari) v State of Haryana and others (CWP 19638/2008 decided on 14.1.2010) (P-6) and Subh Karan Sharma and others v State of Haryana and others (CWP 18370/2009 decided on 27.5.2010)(P-7). Thus, he states that the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief.
Having heard learned counsel and perused the referred judgments, this Court finds no ground to accept the plea of the petitioner.
Perusal of judgments at P-6 and P-7 reveals that petitioners therein were retrenched as Patwari from the service of HSMITC and were absorbed with the Revenue Department on passing of certain examination. Thus, the case is entirely distinguishable as in the present case the petitioner had availed all the benefits from his previous employer and therefore, was recruited as a fresh entrant byRAJINDER wayPRASHAD of JOSHI I attest to the accuracy of this document High Court,Chandigarh.
29.08.2014 11:34 CWP 10057/2014(O&M) 3 109 direct recruitment although against the posts reserved for retrenched employees. Nevertheless in law his status remains to be that of a fresh entrant, clearly different from the concept of absorption. Therefore, the said judgments do not advance the case of the petitioner. There is no rule cited by the petitioner entitling him to the grant of benefit of the said period on his fresh recruitment with a different employer.
It was next urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that employees in the cited judgments P-6 and P-7 were granted the benefit of counting of their previous service subject to deposit of CPF etc. availed by them and the petitioner is also ready to deposit the same.
This argument is misconceived because employees in the cited judgments were absorbed and therefore the benefit, if any, availed by them was directed to be deposited, which is not the circumstance in case of the petitioner.
In view of the above,finding no merit in the present writ petition the same is hereby dismissed.
28.08.2014 (Jaswant Singh)
joshi Judge
RAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI
I attest to the accuracy of this
document
High Court,Chandigarh.
29.08.2014 11:34