Punjab-Haryana High Court
Randhir Singh Lambra vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 8 December, 2014
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
CWP No.781 of 2014 1
234
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.781 of 2014
Date of decision: 08.12.2014
Randhir Singh Lambra
...Petitioner
vs.
The State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. Parveen Kumar Rohilla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashok Singh Chaudhary, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
None for respondent No.2.
****
Rameshwar Singh Malik, J. (Oral)
Feeling aggrieved against the alleged inaction on the part of respondent authorities, the petitioner has approached this court by way of instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to count his past regular service rendered by him in Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation Limited and the service on contract basis with Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission-respondent No.2, followed by regular service, for the purpose of grant of pension and other retrial benefits.
SONIA GUGNANI 2014.12.22 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.781 of 2014 2
Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2 who is the only contesting party. However, neither anybody has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 to oppose this writ petition nor any request for pass over has been made.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was entitled for counting of his regular service rendered by him in the Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation Limited. He is also entitled for counting his contract service rendered in Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission-respondent No.2, followed by regular service, for the purpose of grant of pension and other retrial benefits. He refers to Para IV of the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.2 and contends that the stand taken by respondent No.2 was patently illegal. The entire service rendered by the petitioner in HSMITC and contract service rendered in Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission followed by regular service deserves to be counted for the purpose of granting the pension and other retrial benefits.
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments of this Court:
1. 'Sat Parkash vs. State of Haryana and others' passed in CWP No.14088 of 2012, decided on 09.10.2013
2. 'Baldev Singh vs. State of Haryana and another' passed in CWP No.10535 of 2007, decided on 05.03.2009,
3. 'Jai Parkash vs. The State of Haryana and others' passed in CWP No.17343 of 2007, decided on 28.11.2008,
4. 'Mahavir Yadav vs. State of Haryana and others' passed in SONIA GUGNANI 2014.12.22 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.781 of 2014 3 CWP No.24370 of 2012, decided on 21.02.2014;
Learned counsel for the petitioner further prays for allowing the present writ petition by issuing appropriate directions.
Learned counsel for the State submits that respondent No.2 was the contesting party.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the instant writ petition deserves to be allowed, for the following more than one reasons.
It is a matter of record and not in dispute that the petitioner has rendered regular service of 23 years, 11 months and 20 days with Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation Limited ('HSMITC' for short). The HSMITC was closed in the year 2002 and thereafter, the petitioner joined the service in Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission- respondent No.2 w.e.f. 29.05.2003 rendering the service for eight years and eleven months before his retirement on 30.04.2012. Had the service rendered by the petitioner in HSMITC being counted for the purpose of pension and other retrial benefits, the petitioner would have been entitled for pensionary/retrial benefits which have been denied by the respondent- Authority. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the stand taken by respondent No.2 is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the cases referred hereinabove and the same cannot be sustained.
The relevant observations made by this Court in Mahavir Yadav's case (supra) which can be gainfully followed in the present case, SONIA GUGNANI 2014.12.22 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.781 of 2014 4 read as under:
"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 with in 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."
No other argument was raised.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the genuine claim of the petitioner deserves to be re-considered at the hands of respondent No.2. Consequently, respondent No.2 is directed to re-consider the matter in the light of the judgments passed by this Court referred hereinabove.
Let respondent No.2 pass an appropriate order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential service benefits. If the SONIA GUGNANI 2014.12.22 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.781 of 2014 5 needful is not done within stipulated period, the petitioner shall be entitled for resultant monetary benefits along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date amount became due till the date of actual payment.
Resultantly, with the above said observations made and directions issued, the instant petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 08.12.2014 sonia g.
SONIA GUGNANI 2014.12.22 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document