Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdish Singh And Others vs Sh.Manvesh Singh Sidhu on 30 May, 2012
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.O.C.P.No.739 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision : May 30, 2012
Jagdish Singh and others .....Petitioners
versus
Sh.Manvesh Singh Sidhu .....Respondent
C.O.C.P.No.445 of 2011 (O&M)
Vijay Kumar .....Petitioner
versus
Sh.R.S.Ballian and another .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.3058 of 2011 (O&M)
Balwinder Kaur and others .....Petitioners
versus
Sh.Manvesh Singh Sidhu .....Respondent
C.O.C.P.No.144 of 2012 (O&M)
Puran Singh .....Petitioner
versus
Sh.Manvesh Inder Singh Sidhu .....Respondent
C.O.C.P.No.155 of 2012 (O&M)
Jalour Singh and others .....Petitioners
versus
Sh.Manvesh Singh Sidhu and another .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.157 of 2012 (O&M)
Dharampal .....Petitioner
versus
Sh.Ranjit Singh Ballian and others .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.175 of 2012 (O&M)
Baljinder Singh and others .....Petitioners
versus
Sh.R.S.Ballian and another .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.263 of 2012 (O&M)
Baljit Singh and others .....Petitioners
versus
Sh.Ranjit Singh Ballian and others .....Respondents
COCP No.739 of 2012 & connected cases [2]
C.O.C.P.No.265 of 2012 (O&M)
Madan Lal and others .....Petitioners
versus
Sh.R.S.Ballian and another .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.333 of 2012 (O&M)
Kewal Singh and others .....Petitioners
versus
Sh.R.S.Ballian and another .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.340 of 2012 (O&M)
Ramesh Chand and another .....Petitioners
versus
Sh.R.S.Ballian and another .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.341 of 2012 (O&M)
Surinder Pal Singh .....Petitioner
versus
Sh.R.S.Ballian and another .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.373 of 2012 (O&M)
Surjit Singh .....Petitioner
versus
Manvesh Singh Sidhu and another .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.402 of 2012 (O&M)
Inderjit Singh and another .....Petitioners
versus
Manvesh Singh Sidhu and another .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.421 of 2012 (O&M)
Surjit Singh .....Petitioner
versus
Sh.Manvesh Singh Sidhu and another .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.472 of 2012 (O&M)
Malik Vijay Singh .....Petitioner
versus
Sh.Manvesh Singh Sidhu and another .....Respondents
COCP No.739 of 2012 & connected cases [3]
C.O.C.P.No.572 of 2012 (O&M)
Rajinder Paul and others .....Petitioners
versus
Sh.R.S.Ballian and another .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.740 of 2012 (O&M)
Mohan Lal and others .....Petitioners
versus
Sh.R.S.Ballian and another .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.741 of 2012 (O&M)
Sucha Singh and others .....Petitioners
versus
Sh.R.S.Ballian and another .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.742 of 2012 (O&M)
Jaswant Singh and others .....Petitioners
versus
Sh.R.S.Ballian and another .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.984 of 2012 (O&M)
Piaradin and others .....Petitioners
versus
Sh.Manvesh Singh Sidhu and another .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.985 of 2012 (O&M)
Baldev Singh and others .....Petitioners
versus
Sh.Manvesh Singh Sidhu and another .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.986 of 2012 (O&M)
Krishan Chand and others .....Petitioners
versus
Sh.Manvesh Singh Sidhu and another .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.1015 of 2012 (O&M)
Ram Lal and others .....Petitioners
versus
Sh.Manvesh Singh Sidhu .....Respondent
COCP No.739 of 2012 & connected cases [4]
C.O.C.P.No.1159 of 2012 (O&M)
Jang Singh and others .....Petitioners
versus
Sh.R.S.Ballian and another .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.1160 of 2012 (O&M)
Santokh Singh and others .....Petitioners
versus
Sh.R.S.Ballian and another .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.1161 of 2012 (O&M)
Lachman Singh and others .....Petitioners
versus
Sh.R.S.Ballian and another .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.1168 of 2012 (O&M)
Didar Singh .....Petitioner
versus
B.P.S.Kharbanda and another .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.1191 of 2012 (O&M)
Shiv Kumar and others .....Petitioners
versus
Sh.R.S.Ballian and another .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.1202 of 2012 (O&M)
Ajmer Singh .....Petitioner
versus
Sh.Vinod Kumar Jindal and another .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.1368 of 2012 (O&M)
Nidhan Singh and others .....Petitioners
versus
Manvesh Singh Sidhu .....Respondent
C.O.C.P.No.1379 of 2012 (O&M)
Ram Sarup and others .....Petitioners
versus
Manvesh Singh Sidhu .....Respondent
COCP No.739 of 2012 & connected cases [5]
C.O.C.P.No.1393 of 2012 (O&M)
Balbir Singh .....Petitioner
versus
Sh.R.S.Ballian and another .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.1415 of 2012 (O&M)
Harjinder Singh and others .....Petitioners
versus
Sh.R.S.Ballian and another .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.1416 of 2012 (O&M)
Upkar Singh and others .....Petitioners
versus
Sh.R.S.Ballian and another .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.1499 of 2011 (O&M)
Vijay Kumar and others .....Petitioners
versus
Sh.R.S.Ballian and another .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.1530 of 2012 (O&M)
Ajit Kaur .....Petitioner
versus
Manvesh Sandhu and another .....Respondents
C.O.C.P.No.1660 of 2012 (O&M)
Prem Dass Sharma .....Petitioner
versus
Sh.D.P.S.Kharbanda .....Respondent
C.O.C.P.No.1324 of 2010 (O&M)
Sham Singh .....Petitioner
versus
Manvesh Singh Sidhu and another .....Respondents
COCP No.739 of 2012 & connected cases [6]
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
Present :S/Sh.Vikas Chatrath, Padam Jain, Vikas Singh, Gagneshwar
Walia, Arun Bansal, P.S.Bawa, R.K.Arora, S.K.Rattan, Hemant
Saini, Rajesh Kumar Girdhar, Pankaj Katia, Harshit Jain,
S.S.Salar, Vijay Sharma, R.S.Chaudhan, B.S.Saini, S.S.Grewal,
Ms.G.K.Mann, Advocates, for the petitioners.
Mr.Rupinder S.Khosla, Mr.Anupam Singla and Mr.G.S.Gill,
Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocates, for the respondents.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
---
Surya Kant, J.
This order shall dispose of C.O.C.P.Nos.739 of 2012; 445, 3058 of 2011; 144, 155, 157, 175, 263, 265, 333, 340, 341, 373, 402, 421, 472, 572, 740, 741, 742, 984, 985, 986, 1015, 1159, 1160, 1161, 1168, 1191, 1202, 1368, 1379, 1393, 1415, 1416, 1499, 1530 & 1660 of 2012 and 1324 of 2010 as similar or related issues are involved in these cases. 2] Before adverting to the specific directions said to have been willfully breached by the respondents, it is not out of place to mention that the respondent-Corporation due to precarious financial condition was unable to discharge its legal obligation towards payment of retiral benefits to its retirees who had to earlier approach this Court in a group of writ petitions. Those writ petitions were disposed of by this Court vide order dated 3.3.2011 with the following directions:-
i) All those employees who have retired after 01.01.2006 shall be paid the arrears of revised pay scales as well as the revised pensionary benefits following the slab adopted by the Punjab Government. The first slab/instalment in the instant case shall be released on or before 31.07.2011 followed by the next slab/instalment within the same duration of period as COCP No.739 of 2012 & connected cases [7] fixed by the State Government;
ii) The commuted value of Pension shall be released to the above mentioned category of retirees by 30.04.2012;
iii) The options given by the employees to switch over to the Pension Scheme with an undertaking to refund the advance, if any, received by them alongwith interest, shall be considered by the Corporation in the light of the decision rendered by this Court in the case Mohinder Singh v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Patiala & Anr. 2009(2) SCT 214, however, subject to the final outcome of the SLP stated to have been filed by the Corporation in which stay has also been granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is made clear that the final decision in the said SLP shall be binding on the parties even if no separate appeals are filed by the Corporation. The implementation of this direction shall also be kept in abeyance till the final decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Those retirees who want to exercise such option on the basis of pleas other than Mohinder Singh's case (supra) they may separately represent for the same and their claim(s) shall also be considered and disposed of separately within six months by passing a speaking order.
iv) Wherever the Corporation is of the bona fide belief that the employee(s) failed to exercise the option for Pension Scheme within the prescribed and/or extended period without any reasonable excuse and none of the decision(s) relied upon by such employee
(s) apply in his/their case(s), the Corporation shall be COCP No.739 of 2012 & connected cases [8] at liberty to pass speaking order(s) to that effect after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the employee(s). However, if the claims are found to have been rejected mechanically to cause harassment to the retirees, the Corporation shall be liable to compensate them with exemplary costs and interest @ 12% per annum;
v) Keeping the financial constraints of the Corporation in view, the award of interest, to the petitioner(s) is kept in abeyance;
vi) It is, however, directed that the failure of the Corporation to adhere to the above-mentioned schedule shall entitle the petitioners to interest @ 9% p.a.;
vii) As regards those categories of employees who though have been granted pension but are seeking the 'counting of their qualifying service from the date of joining' instead of the date when they started contributing to the 'Contributory Fund', the petitioners rely upon certain decisions of this Court where similar relief had been granted. Liberty is accordingly granted to all such employees to submit a self-explanatory representation(s) along with the binding decision(s) relied upon by them and such representation(s) shall be collectively disposed of by the Managing Director by passing a speaking order keeping in view the Service Regulations and/or other Rules, if any, applicable on the subject and if so possible, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved in their representative capacity, within a period of four months from the date of submission COCP No.739 of 2012 & connected cases [9] of such representation(s);
viii) Interest at the statutory rate shall be paid on Gratuity in terms of the undertaking already given by the respondent-Corporation before a Co-ordinate Bench in COCP No.562 of 2010 and other connected matters;
ix) So far as the dues of 'Leave Travelling Concession/Allowance', 'Medical Allowance' or the 'overtime allowance' claimed by some of the petitioners are concerned, it is pointed out that the petitioner(s) have already served the respondents with legal notice(s) and/or have raised such claims but no decision appears to have been taken so far. The respondents are accordingly directed that whosoever has represented, raised and/or served the Corporation with a legal notice, the claim of such retiree shall be considered in accordance with the rules/policy and disposed of by passing a speaking order within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and if anything found due, shall also be released within three months thereafter....";
3] Since the PRTC failed to adhere to the agreed time schedule for compliance of the directions reproduced above, the retirees resorted to contempt proceedings and a bunch of such petitions was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 5.1.2012 passed in COCP No.688 of 2010 (Surinder Pal Singh and others versus Dr.D.S.Jaspal and another) and other connected matters are taking notice of the fact that the retirees had been paid overtime dues and were receiving their pension regularly. It was assured by the Corporation Authorities that COCP No.739 of 2012 & connected cases [10] monthly pension to all the retirees shall be properly scheduled through an effective mechanism. A promise to release the commuted value of pension was also made. Regarding individual claims, liberty was granted to the petitioners to make representation which was to be responded in a time bound manner.
4] The exhaustive orders passed by this Court in exercise of writ or contempt jurisdictions also could not prevent the spate of litigation as more than 60 writ or contempt petitions have again been filed by the retirees alleging non- payment of one or the other service benefit. The operators of Kilometer Scheme Buses awaiting due payments as per the time schedule fixed, have also filed cases.
5] All these cases have been heard together at some length and records perused.
6] It is expedient for the sake of convenience and effective adjudication that these contempt petitions are divided into three broad groups:
GROUP No.I 7] Contempt Petition Nos.263 of 2012, 265 of 2012, 155 of 2012, 175 of 2012, 739 of 2012, 572 of 2012, 740 of 2012, 741 of 2012, 742 of 2012, 333 of 2012, 340 of 2012, 341 of 2012, 445 of 2011, 373 of 2012, 402 of 2012, 144 of 2012, 472 of 2012, 1324 of 2010, 1159 of 2012, 1160 of 2012, 1161 of 2012, 1191 of 2012, 1202 of 2012, 1368 of 2012, 1379 of 2012, 1393 of 2012, 1415 of 2012, 1416 of 2012, 984 of 2012, 985 of 2012, 986 of 2012, 1530 of 2012, 1499 of 2012 and 1660 of 2012 are at the instance of retirees of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, who have alleged that due amount of retiral benefits including revised pension, commutation of pension, gratuity, leave encashment, arrears of dearness allowance, COCP No.739 of 2012 & connected cases [11] medical re-imbursement, LTC as well as interest on the delayed payments have not been released so far despite time bound directions issued by this Court vide order dated 3.3.2011, reproduced above.
8] Mr.D.P.S.Kharbanda, Managing Director of the Corporation has filed his reply-affidavit explaining that a meeting was convened by the Chief Secretary, Punjab, on 27.3.2012 under the directions of this Court and the respective Government Departments were directed to re-imburse the outstanding dues of the Corporation. The Corporation received a sum of Rs.8.75 crores pursuant thereof, which was spent in paying the arrears of gratuity, leave encashment, revised gratuity and leave encashment, arrears of pay and pension and medical re-imbursement etc. The affidavit reveals that after the previous date of hearing i.e., 18.4.2012, a sum of Rs.14.96 crores have been received by the Corporation towards re- imbursement of pending dues from various Government Departments out of which the following payments have been made:
"...Due amount of Death-cum-retirement gratuity amounting to Rs.8.10 crores, leave encashment amounting to Rs.4.15 crores, revised pension arrear (33%) 1 s t instalment w.e.f. 1.1.2006 to 31.3.2010 of retired employees between this period amounting to Rs.0.03 crore, revised pay arrear (20%) balance of 1s t instalment of employees retired w.e.f. 1.1.2006 to 31.3.2010 amounting to Rs.1.75 croes, D.A. arrears amounting to Rs.1.04 crores, medical re-imbursement of Rs.0.32 crores, overtime amounting to Rs.0.78 crores. Apart from above, another sum of Rs.2.25 crore on account of G.P.F. payment as per seniority COCP No.739 of 2012 & connected cases [12] has also been paid to the retirees upto 31.5.2010. Another sum of Rs.3.34 crores on account of monthly pension for the month of April, 2012 payable in May, 2012 also released. Totaling in all Rs.21.76 crores has been paid to the retirees retired upto 29.2.2012. In addition to this, Rs.4.10 crores has also been released to the operators of KM Scheme Buses. The cases of those retirees who retired after March, 2012 are under process for calculations of their last payments due towards retiral benefits....."
9] The Managing Director of the Corporation, keeping in view the poor financial condition, has expressed inability to commute the pension of the retirees and has prayed to extend the time for such commutation upto 31.12.2012 though has given an undertaking that monthly pension shall be paid to the retirees regularly.
10] Sh.Rupinder S.Khosla, learned counsel representing the Corporation authorities, on instructions from the Managing Director who is present in Court, states that all the retirees who retired upto 29.2.2012 have been paid the due amount of gratuity, leave encashment, revised pension, arrears of revised pay, arrears of DA, medical re-imbursement and overtime. He fairly states that in some cases revised gratuity, leave encashment on account of revision of pay scales is yet to be paid as the calculation of dues of more than 800 retirees is a time consuming process. He further states that LTC claim by the retirees is not admissible as no such benefit is granted by the Corporation. It has been further stated that about 50 employees have further retired between 1.3.2012 to 31.5.2012 and the above stated retiral benefits shall be paid to them as well.
COCP No.739 of 2012 & connected cases [13]GROUP No.II 11] C.O.C.P.Nos.3058 of 2011 and 1015 of 2012 pertain to the claims of Operators of Kilometers Scheme Buses. 12] It is stated by Mr.Rupinder S.Khosla, learned counsel for the Corporation that a sum of Rs.4.10 crores has been released yesterday, i.e., 29.5.2012 to clear the back log upto 15.12.2011. He further states that an estimated claim of Rs.7.25 cores is pending till 31.3.2012 and given two weeks' more time, a sum of Rs.2.35 crores shall also be disbursed towards payment of the above-stated due amount.
GROUP NO.III.
13] C.O.C.P.Nos.1168, 421 and 157 of 2012 are at the instance of the retirees seeking re-imbursement of medical bills. 14] It is stated by Mr.Rupinder S.Khosala, Advocate that due payments have already been made to the petitioners leaving no cause to continue with these contempt proceedings. 15] There is indeed no serious dispute that if all the with- held retiral benefits are ordered to be released, the Corporation will completely crumble and will not be able to liquidate its liability, leaving no option but to move towards winding up which is neither in the interest of hundreds of serving employees nor the public at large to whom the transport facilities at normal charges are being provided. The petitioners have fairly agreed to bear the burnt and give breathing time to the Corporation to come out of financial crisis and release their due benefits in phases.
COCP No.739 of 2012 & connected cases [14]16] The petitioners are, however, absolutely justified in urging that despite categoric claim made before this Court regarding disbursement of funds or payment of all the retiral benefits to those who retired before 29.2.2012, many of them have actually received nothing towards gratuity or leave encashment.
17] Keeping in view the totality of circumstances and in the best interest of the petitioners as also to give little more space to the Corporation to recover its dues and discharge the liabilities, these contempt proceedings are hereby disposed of with the following clarificatory directions:-
i) The respondents shall be duty bound to release the due amount of gratuity, leave encashment, revised pension, arrears of revised pay, revised gratuity, revised leave encashment and medical re-
imbursement to every retiree who retired upto 29.2.2012, before 30.6.2012. The General Manager of each depot of the Corporation shall be required to send a No Claim Certificate before the above-stated date to the Head Office of the Corporation certifying that all the retirees in his depot have been paid the above-stated benefits;
ii) If the General Manger of a depot is unable to release the retiral dues to the above-mentioned retirees due to paucity of funds, he shall demand additional funds from the Corporation before 11.6.2012, which shall be made available before 22.6.2012 and shall then be disbursed to the retirees before 30.6.2012. Any lapse in this regard shall make the officer(s) personally responsible for 'interest' on delayed payments;
iii) Those who have retired between 1.3.2012 to COCP No.739 of 2012 & connected cases [15] 31.5.2012 shall be paid the above-stated retiral benefits within a period of three months from the respective date of their retirement, i.e., each one of them before 31.8.2012 and if so required, the General Manager of the Depot or Head Office shall act upon in the same time bound manner as directed at Sr.No.
(ii) above;
iv) Those retirees who have opted for contributory provident fund instead of pension are also admittedly entitled to gratuity at the enhanced rate at par with those who have opted for pension scheme. The enhanced amount of gratuity shall be paid to them before 31.7.2012 (if retired upto 29.2.2012) and upto 30.9.2012 (if retired after 29.2.2012 and upto 31.5.2012);
v) A Grievance Cell shall be established in the Head Office within a week nominating three senior officers of the Corporation whose mobile numbers shall be made available to all the retirees to enable them to directly contact the officers between 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. and lodge complaint against non-payment of the retiral benefits within the time fixed above;
vi) If an individual claim of a retiree has not been settled so far, liberty is granted to him to submit a representation to the Managing Director of the Corporation and the same shall be disposed of by passing a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of its receipt in the Head Office;
vii) Since retirement of employees is an ongoing process and the respondent-authorities are equally obligated COCP No.739 of 2012 & connected cases [16] to release the retiral benefits of subsequent retirees also, it is directed that a time bound scheme for the release of retiral dues (other than the commuted value of pension, overtime allowance and LTC) shall be notified and circulated amongst the employees retiring till 31.12.2012 so that they do not rush to the Courts for the release of their due benefits as the cost of litigation itself is a wholly unwarranted burden on the employees as well as the Corporation. The Authorities shall ensure that time bound schedule so notified is strictly adhered to by them;
viii) The aforesaid direction No.(vii) shall not be construed to mean as if the petitioners or other retirees are not entitled to commuted value of pension, overtime allowance, LTC or interest on the delayed payments. Realization of these claims is merely suspended and/or kept in abeyance for the time being till the Corporation re-gains financial viability;
ix) Some of the retirees/employees are aggrieved by the deductions made from their retiral benefits or otherwise on account of re-fixation of their pay etc. It could not be seriously disputed that the service benefits withdrawn from the retirees/employees were not secured by them through fraudulent means or by mis-representing the facts. That being so, the recovered/with-held amount shall be released before 30.9.2012, following the dictum of the Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram and others versus State of Haryana and others, 2009 (3) S.C.T.333
x) The Corporation, as per its assurance given today, COCP No.739 of 2012 & connected cases [17] shall release an additional sum of Rs.2.35 crores to be disbursed to the operators of Kilometer Scheme Buses by 15.6.2012. The Corporation shall thereafter augment its resources to write off the claims pending till 31.3.2012, before 31.8.2012;
xi) It was informed during the course of hearing that about Rs.12.00 crores are still re-imburseable by various Government Departments to the Corporation each quarter. The obligation of the Chief Secretary to the Government of Punjab, therefore, is not over only on convening the meeting dated 27.3.2012. He shall again impress upon the departments in arrears to release their respective due amounts within one month of their falling due each quarter so that the Corporation is able to meet its obligation in a regular manner, from time to time.
18] With the above-mentioned directions and observations, the contempt petitions stand disposed of.
May 30, 2012 ( S URYA K ANT) Mohinder JUDGE