Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation vs Gurdev Singh And Another on 22 March, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
LPA No. 545 of 2011 (O&M) & connected appeals
Date of Decision: March 22, 2011
PEPSU Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and another
...Appellants
Versus
Gurdev Singh and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present: Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate,
for the appellants.
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 short issue raised in the instant set of three appeals* filed by the PEPSU Road Transport Corporation-appellant is whether the writ petitioner-respondent(s) are entitled to count the benefit of military service granted to them as qualifying service for the pur- poses of computation and calculation of their pension.
2. The learned Single Judge has noticed that the appellant Corporation itself has granted the benefit of military service to the writ petitioners under the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 (for brevity, 'the Rules'). The aforesaid benefits were released to the writ petitioner-respondent(s) on differ- ent dates i.e. (i) to Shri Gurdev Singh on 18.2.1987; (ii) to Shri Rajin- der Singh Dhaliwal on 13.11.1981; and (iii) to Shri Gurchet Singh on 22.7.1986. The appellant Corporation switched over from the Con- tributory Provident Fund Scheme to Pension Scheme by enacting LPA No. 545 of 2011 (O&M) & connected appeals 2 the Regulations known as 'PEPSU Road Transport Corporation Em- ployees Pension/Gratuity and General Provident Fund Regulations, 1992 (for brevity, 'the Regulations'). The appellant Corporation has rejected the claim of the writ petitioner-respondent(s) for counting the benefit of military service for the purposes of computation of pension by placing reliance on Regulation 6 of the Regulations, which stipulated that qualifying service is to be determined from the date when an employee had started contributing towards the Con- tributory Provident Fund. The view of the learned Single Judge is discernible from the following paras of his judgment dated 8.9.2010:
" A conjoint reading of the Rules and the Regu- lations lead to an inference that as and when pension is introduced, employee is required to deposit the amount of gratuity and bonus received from the army. Since the employees of the Corporation were paid pension, there- fore, petitioner was not bound to deposit gratuity and bo- nus received earlier from the army authorities. If, at the time of joining the service of the Corporation, the em- ployees of the Corporation were paid pension, petitioner would have deposited the amount of gratuity and bonus received from the army. Petitioner joined the Corporation on 22.4.1977 and was retired by it on 31.1.2002. The Pension Regulations came into operation with effect from 15.6.1992 whereas the military service benefit was granted to the petitioner on 18.2.1987. It was incumbent upon the authorities of the Corporation to issue notice to those employees who had been granted military service benefit to deposit the amount of gratuity and bonus and LPA No. 545 of 2011 (O&M) & connected appeals 3 also of contributory provident fund from the day their presumptive date of appointment was fixed.
The concessions made under the military serv- ice rules were not mere formalities. There was sanguine promise made to those, who leaving their families be- hind, went to the battle-fields to defend the nation. Those who went to answer the clarion call given by the nation, cannot be denied their rightful dues on the basis of nar- row construction of the rules. Thus, on the basis of har- monious interpretation of the provisions to grant benefit which is due to those who went to save the nation at the war front, the petitioners Gurdev Singh and Rajinder Singh have been given 5 years and 9 months, and 6 years benefit of military service, respectively. Therefore, this Court is of the view that respective service rendered by the petitioners as military service is to be taken into consideration."
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant Corpo- ration at a considerable length and are of the view that these ap- peals are liable to be dismissed. Keeping in view the nature, con- tents and import of the Rules it is not possible to deprive the writ petitioner-respondent(s) the benefit of pension under the Regula- tions, especially when the emergency service benefits have been al- lowed by the appellant Corporation in favour of the petitioner-re- spondent(s) as noticed above. It is needless to say that by no stretch of imagination the writ petitioner-respondent(s) could have started contribution for the period of military service before 1992 when the Regulations were framed. In any case, the benefit of emergency service has been granted to the writ petitioner-respon- LPA No. 545 of 2011 (O&M) & connected appeals 4 dent(s) during the years 1981, 1986 and 1987. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is unexceptionable on principle and law. The appeals do not merit admission and are thus liable to be dis- missed.
4. As a sequel to the above discussion, these appeals fail and the same are accordingly dismissed.
5. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected appeals.
(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
(T.P.S. MANN)
March 22, 2011 JUDGE
PKapoor
*
Sr. LPA CWP Date of decision Title
No. No. No. by the learned
Single Judge
1. 545 of 2777 08.09.2010 PEPSU Road Transport
2011 of Corporation, Patiala and
2004 another v. Gurdev Singh
and another
2. 546 of 8597 13.09.2010 PEPSU Road Transport
2011 of Corporation, Patiala v.
2002 Gurchet Singh
3. 547 of 2778 08.09.2010 PEPSU Road Transport
2011 of Corporation, Patiala and
2004 another v. Rajinder Singh
Dhaliwal and another
(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
(T.P.S. MANN)
March 22, 2011 JUDGE
PKapoor