Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana & Others vs Savitri Devi And Others ---Respondents on 26 May, 2011
LPA No. 1317 of 2009 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 1317 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision 26.05.2011
State of Haryana & Others -----Petitioners
Versus
Savitri Devi and others ---Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH
Present: Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana
for the appellant.
Mr. O.P. Tanwar, Advocate
for Mr. H.N. Khanduja, Advocate
for the respondents.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
M.M. KUMAR, J.
1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 24.07.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the services rendered by the writ petitioner on an aided post in a State affiliated and aided school qualify for pension, if such an employee has later on joined the government service. The learned Single Judge held that matter was covered against appellant -State and in favour of the writ petitioner- respondent by various judgments. In that regard observations made by the learned Single Judge reads thus: LPA No. 1317 of 2009 (O&M) -2-
"In all the three writ petitions claim on behalf of number of petitioners, is virtually on the ground that services rendered by them on the posts in a private school, receiving grant-in-aid, can not be ignored for the purpose of grant of pension or other retiral benefits and hence, have approached this Court, seeking such declaration.
The issue raised in the abovesaid three writ petitions already stand adjudicated by this Court in a decision rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.16817 of 2007 (Vijay Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others) decided on July 22, 2009. It is also noticed that the State has taken a similar stand in response to a notice issued in the said writ petitions. Relying upon the ratio laid down in the cases of Harnandan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2007 (2) RSJ 437 and Charan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2006 (6) SLR 624, decided by two different Division Benches of this Court and a case titled Union of India and others Vs. Jawahar Lal Sharma, 2003(3) RSJ 672, the Court has directed the respondents to count the entire service rendered by the petitioners in a privately managed school and in the Government school for the purpose of pension LPA No. 1317 of 2009 (O&M) -3- and retiral benefits. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chander Sain Vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 972. In all these cases, the Court has held that the service rendered in the aided school was required to be counted for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits."
2. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana has not been able to dispute the fact that various judgments rendered by this Court, in fact, cover the issue. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner- respondent has, however, shown us a notification dated 09.02.2011 which in turn follow the same principles which have been adopted in various judgments rendered by this Court. The operative part of the notification dated 09.02.2011 would show that the benefit of pension and gratuity has already been allowed to the employees of Government Aided Establishment w.e.f. 11.05.1998 and it has been decided that service rendered by an employee in Government Aided Establishment be considered as qualifying service for the purpose of calculation of pension because in both these establishments including aided school and Colleges and Government Schools/ Colleges the benefit of pension and gratuity are admissible under the provisions of service rules. It is not disputed that under the rules, the benefit of pension and contributory provident fund were payable to the writ petitioner-respondent when they were discharging duties on an LPA No. 1317 of 2009 (O&M) -4- aided post. In any case, the matter is covered by various judgments of this Court to which reference has been made by the learned Single Judge in the para reproduced in this order. The appeal is, therefore, wholly without merit and thus, is liable to be dismissed.
3. For the reasons aforementioned, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
4. In view of the dismissal of the appeal on merit, no orders are required to be passed on the application seeking condonation of delay of 48 days in filing of the appeal.
(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE May 26, 2011 Atul