Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raminder Pal Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 10 September, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
CWP No.13281 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.13281 of 2011
Date of decision: September 10, 2012
Raminder Pal Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present: Mr. H.N. Khanduja, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana
for the respondents.
...
Augustine George Masih, J. (Oral)
Petitioner has approached this Court, praying for issuance of a direction to the respondents to count the service rendered by him as an untrained Science Master from 21.11.1973 to 22.6.1976 for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been granted the benefit of said service for grant of seniority, annual increments and other benefits, but while computing the pensionary benefits, the said service has not been taken into consideration by the respondents. The claim of the petitioner is covered by the judgement passed by this Court in Balbhadar Dass and others Vs. State of Punjab and others (CWP No.2653 of 1985, decided on 14.1.1986). He further contends that in a CWP No.13281 of 2011 2 similar case, directions were issued by this Court to the respondents to consider the claim of the similarly placed employee for taking into consideration the service rendered as untrained teacher for the grant of pensionary benefits, in Swaraj Kumari Vs. State of Haryana and others (CWP No.17854 of 2008, decided on 03.09.2009), which benefit has been granted to the said petitioner. He therefore, contends that the present petition deserves to be allowed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State contends that the service rendered by the petitioner from 21.11.1973 to 22.6.1976 cannot be taken into consideration for the grant of pensionary benefits as the said service is not countable for the grant of said benefit. The claim of the petitioner is, thus, not sustainable. The period which has been rendered by the petitioner as a trained teacher after qualifying his B.Ed. examinations on 23.6.1976 has been taken into consideration and the consequential benefits granted to the petitioner. He, accordingly, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
I have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case.
The facts, as have been stated above, are not in dispute and, therefore, are not being reiterated herein.
On considering the claim of the petitioner for counting the period of service as untrained teacher from 21.11.1973 to 22.6.1976 for the grant of pensionary benefits, being covered by the judgement passed by this Court in Balbhadar Dass's case (supra) and also keeping in view the order passed by this Court in Swaraj Kumari's case(supra), where directions were CWP No.13281 of 2011 3 issued to the respondents to consider the claim in the light of the judgement passed in Balbhadar Dass's case (supra) and the grant of consequential benefits to the said petitioner, leads to one conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the claim as has been made by him in the present petition.
The writ petition, is therefore, allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to the counting of service from 21.11.1973 to 22.6.1976 for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits. The said period be counted towards the pensionary benefits and the relief be granted to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Arrears of pension shall, however, be restricted to thirty eight months prior to the filing of the present writ petition.
Writ petition stands disposed of.
(Augustine George Masih) Judge September 10, 2012 sk