Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State Electricity Board vs State Of Punjab And Others on 17 October, 2012
Bench: A.K. Sikri, Rakesh Kumar Jain
LPA No. 169 of 2012 (O&M) -1-
LPA No. 506 of 2012 (O&M)
LPA No. 532 of 2012 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 169 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 17.10.2012
Punjab State Electricity Board
...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
LPA No. 506 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 17.10.2012
Punjab State Electricity Board
...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
LPA No. 532 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 17.10.2012
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala
...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Ms. Raminder Gadhoke, Advocate,
for the appellant in LPA Nos. 169 of 2012 and 506 of 2012.
Mr. A.P.S. Sandhu, Advocate,
for the appellant in LPA No. 532 of 2012.
Mr. J.S. Puri, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. Naresh K. Joshi, Advocate,
for respondents No. 2 and 3.
Mr. Ishwar Lall, Advocate,
for respondent No. 4 in LPA No. 169 of 2012.
Mr. H.S. Saini, Advocate,
for the caveator - respondent No. 2,
in LPA No. 532 of 2012.
****
LPA No. 169 of 2012 (O&M) -2-
LPA No. 506 of 2012 (O&M)
LPA No. 532 of 2012 (O&M)
A.K. SIKRI, C.J. (ORAL)
All these appeals raise common questions of law and are, thus, decided by the common order. For the sake of convenience, we take note of the facts in LPA No. 169 of 2012. The respondent herein had worked with the Tele Communication Department, Haryana Circle, Ambala Cantt., under the Ministry of Communication, Government of India from 20.08.1970 to 05.03.1984. Thereafter, he joined the appellant, namely, Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board), on 06.03.1984 i.e. on the very next day. He retired from the service of the Board on 31.12.2006. For the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits, the respondent wanted the service rendered in Tele Communication Department to be counted, which request was rejected by the appellant and in these circumstances he approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 6085 of 2007 for counting of the service from 20.08.1970 to 05.03.1984 in the Tele Communication Department. This writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge, relying upon the earlier judgement in Civil Writ Petition No. 12278 of 2010, titled as Er. Ramesh Chander Mahajan Vs State of Punjab and others, decided on 05.10.2010. We may record that the LPA against that judgement was dismissed. However, a Special Leave Petition, filed by the Board is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In the aforesaid circumstances, normally, we could have waited the decision of the said Special Leave Petition. However, we find that the issue is squarely covered by the detailed judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself in the case filed by the appellant, namely, Punjab State Electricity Board and another Vs Narata Singh and LPA No. 169 of 2012 (O&M) -3- LPA No. 506 of 2012 (O&M) LPA No. 532 of 2012 (O&M) another, 2010 (2), SCT 732. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was seized of the same dispute concerning counting of service rendered in other department before joining the appellant/Board. Tracing the events under which the Central Government had taken the decision for according such a benefit, which was accepted by the Punjab Government and thereafter by the appellant/Board itself, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the employees who served in the Central/State Government before joining the Board were entitled to count even the temporary service rendered by them under the Central/State Government. This becomes clear from the following discussion contained in the said judgement:-
"3. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and in great detail. This Court has also considered the documents forming part of the appeal. The argument that the respondent No.1 had served the Board for 7 years, 11 months and 25 days and was, therefore, not qualified for grant of pension as he had not put in minimum qualifying service of 10 years, is devoid of merits. It is true that the Board is a statutory body constituted under Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and entitled to make regulations in exercise of power conferred by Section 79 of the said Act. It is also true that the regulation relating to pension requires that an employee of the Board must serve for a minimum period of 10 years so as to claim pensionary benefits and that the total service of the respondent No.1 with the Board is of 7 years, 11 months and 25 days. However, the claim made by the respondent No.1 that previous service rendered by him in work charged capacity with the State Government should be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining qualifying service for grant of pension is rightly upheld by High Court. It is relevant to notice that there were many cases where employees who had rendered temporary service under the State Government were retrenched but later on had secured employment under the Central Government and claimed pensionary benefits from the Central Government wherefrom eventually they had retired. There were also cases where employees who had rendered temporary service under the Central Government had secured LPA No. 169 of 2012 (O&M) -4- LPA No. 506 of 2012 (O&M) LPA No. 532 of 2012 (O&M) employment under the State Government and were claiming pensionary benefits from the State Government wherefrom eventually they had retired. Therefore, the question of allocation of pensionary liability in respect of temporary service rendered under the Government of India and State Governments was considered by the Central Government. The Central Government consulted the State Governments and it was decided that as proportionate pensionary liability in respect of temporary service rendered under the Central Government or the State Governments to the extent of such service could have qualified for grant of pension under the Rules of the respective Government, will be shared by the governments concerned on a service share basis, so that the Government servants are allowed the benefit of counting their qualifying service both under the Central Government and the State Governments for grant of pension by the Government from where they eventually retire. This decision was reflected in letter dated March 31, 1982 addressed by the Under Secretary to Government of India to the Secretary to Government of all the States Finance Department (except Government of Jammu and Kashmir and Nagaland). The abovementioned policy decision taken by the Central Government was considered by the finance Department of Government of Punjab. It was decided by the Government of Punjab that proportionate pensionary liability in respect of temporary service rendered under the Central Government/State Government to the extent such service could have qualified for grant of pension under the rules of respective Government will be shared by the Government concerned on a service share basis, so that the Government servants are allowed the benefit of counting their qualifying service both under the Central Government and the State Government for grant of pension by the Government from where they eventually retire. This policy decision taken by the Government of Punjab is reflected in a letter dated May 20, 1982 addressed to all the Heads of Departments, Registrar, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Commissioner of Divisions, District and Sessions Judge and Deputy Commissioners in the State. The abovementioned policy decisions taken by the Central Government and the Government of Punjab were taken into consideration by the Board which issued a Memo dated November 25, 1985 with reference to the subject of allocation of pensionary liability in respect of temporary service rendered in the Government of India and State Government and adopted the policy decision reflected in the letter dated May 20, 1982 of the Government of Punjab, with effect from March, 31, 1982 as per the LPA No. 169 of 2012 (O&M) -5- LPA No. 506 of 2012 (O&M) LPA No. 532 of 2012 (O&M) instructions and conditions stipulated in the said letter.
This is quite evident from Memo No.257861/8761/REG.6/V.5 dated November 25, 1985 issued by the under Secretary/P&R/for Secretary, PSEB, Patiala.
4. The effect of adoption of the policy decisions of the Central Government and the State Government was that a temporary employee, who had been retrenched from the service of Central/State Government and had secured employment with the Punjab State Electricity Board, was entitled to count temporary service rendered by him under the Central/State Government to the extent such service was qualified for grant of pension under the Rules of the Central/State Government."
Since the issue is no more res-integra and stands finally settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which law is binding on this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, we do not find any merit in these appeals, which are accordingly dismissed on merit as well as on the ground of inordinate delay in filing the appeals as no cogent ground has been made to condone the same.
(A.K. SIKRI) CHIEF JUSTICE (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE 17.10.2012 Amodh