Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mahavir Yadav vs State Of Haryana And Others on 21 February, 2014
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.24370 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 24370 OF 2012
DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 21, 2014
Mahavir Yadav
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana,
for the State.
*****
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner has approached this Court claiming the benefit of counting the past service rendered by him with the Haryana Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation Limited (For short 'HMITC') prior to his transfer to the office of Deputy Commissioner, Mohindergarh at Narnaul.
Petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk in the office of HMITC on 25.09.1973. His service was regularized on 01.04.1974. He worked there till 01.10.1992 when he was sent to the Command Area Development Authority on deputation. On his request, he was transferred to the office of Deputy Commissioner and he sought appointment in that office Harish Kumar 2014.02.24 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.24370 of 2012 -2- by way of transfer. Recommendation was made in favour of the petitioner and petitioner was ultimately appointed by way of transfer vide letter dated 04.07.2000 (Annexure P-1) in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Mohindergarh at Narnaul. He continued there as such till the date of his retirement i.e. 30.09.2009. While issuing the retiral benefits, the period spent by the petitioner in HMITC has not been taken into consideration by the respondents and the pensionary benefits have been granted to him by taking into consideration the service rendered by him with the respondents.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the claim of the petitioner is not disputed by the respondents with regard to his entitlement for counting of the said period and, therefore, writ petition deserves to be allowed as the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the amount of EPF/CPF alongwith the interest thereon.
Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner is not entitled to the claim as has been made by him in the present writ petition in the light of the fact that an option under Rule 14.30 of the Civil Services Rule, Volume-II was given to him. An option was open to him in the light of the memorandum dated 07.01.2002 of Finance Department which were not exercised by him and, therefore, the claim could not be granted to him. Further the petitioner had not deposited the employer's share of Contribution Provident Fund with interest received from the old organization and, therefore, he is not entitled to the counting of service rendered by him in HMITC.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case. Harish Kumar 2014.02.24 11:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.24370 of 2012 -3-
In the light of the fact that the respondents, on principles, are not disputing the fact that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the counting prior service rendered by him in the HMITC for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits. However, the only objection which has been raised with regard to his non giving of option within the time stipulated and non depositing the employer's share of Contribution Provident Fund.
This issue may not detain for long for the simple reason that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the full amount of employer's share of Contribution Provident Fund alongwith interest which he has received from the old organization. If he does the same, the benefit should be granted to him for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits by counting the service rendered by him in HMITC.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. Petitioner is directed to deposit the employer's share of Contribution Provident Fund along with interest upto date with the respondents within a period of eight weeks. On depositing of the same, the consequential benefits be counted and granted to the petitioner within a further period of three months.
February 21, 2014 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
Harish JUDGE
Harish Kumar
2014.02.24 11:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document