Punjab-Haryana High Court
Director vs Subhash Setia And Others on 2 May, 2012
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Letters Patent Appeal No. 530 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision : May 02, 2012
Director, Treasuries and Accounts, Haryana and others
....Appellants
Versus
Subhash Setia and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Addl. Advocate General, Hry.
for the appellants.
Mr. R.N. Sharma, Advocate
for the Caveators/respondents.
T.P.S. MANN, J.
The appellants have filed the present appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent with a prayer for setting aside the order dated 19.7.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 17116 of 2009) filed by the respondents for counting their previous service rendered in the Haryana Tourism Corporation Limited (for short 'the Corporation') towards grant of pension had been disposed of with a direction to the appellants to re-consider their request for either depositing the CPF contribution lying in their account or, in the alternative, deduct that amount for pensionary benefits for counting the service rendered by them in the Corporation for the purposes of grant of pension.
The learned Single Judge had relied upon the decision rendered in CWP No. 18370 of 2009 titled as Shubh Letters Patent Appeal No. 530 of 2012 (O&M) -2- Karan Sharma and others Vs. Chief Secretary to Government Haryana and others decided on 27.5.2010. It may not be out of place to mention here that the aforementioned decision in the case of Shubh Karan Sharma and others (supra) was also challenged by the appellants by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.1261 of 2011 which was disposed of on 18.8.2011 by holding that the past service rendered by the writ petitioners therein deserved to be counted for the purposes of pension subject to the condition that they would deposit the amount of CPF contribution with the appellants in accordance with the rules which had been withdrawn by them. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge that the period of service rendered by the writ petitioners in Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation (HSMITC) was to be counted for all intents and purposes, was deleted. It was, however, directed that the period was to count only for the pensionary/retrial benefits. With the said modification, the appeal was disposed of. The concluding para of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in LPA No.1261 of 2011 in the case of Shubh Karan Sharma and others (supra) is as follows :-
"Keeping in view the aforesaid statement made by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the past service rendered by the writ petitioner-respondents with the HSMITC deserves to be counted for the purposes of pension, subject to the Letters Patent Appeal No. 530 of 2012 (O&M) -3- condition that they would deposit the amount of CPF contribution with the appellants in accordance with the rules, which has been withdrawn by them. Accordingly, we delete the direction issued by the learned Single Judge that the period of service rendered in HSMITC is to count for all intents and purposes. It is directed that the period is to count only for the pensionary/retrial benefits. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal is disposed of. The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
Learned counsel for the caveators-respondents have informed the Court that the review application filed by the State against the afore-mentioned decision dated 18.8.2011 has also been dismissed.
Though the appeal is barred by limitation and the appellants have filed the application (C.M. No.1421-LPA of 2012) for condonation of delay of 589 days in filing the appeal yet, without taking the said fact into consideration, we have heard learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the case and perused the order of the learned Single Judge.
Learned State counsel has raised only one submission that the past service rendered by the respondents with the Corporation could not be counted for all intents and Letters Patent Appeal No. 530 of 2012 (O&M) -4- purposes as no such specific prayer had been made by the respondents in the writ petition filed by them.
Learned counsel for the Caveators-respondents has submitted that the respondents would be contented if they are given the relief of counting their past service rendered in the Corporation for the purposes of granting pensionary/retrial benefits only subject to the condition that they would deposit the amount of CPF contribution which they had already withdrawn from the earlier employer as per rules.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the past service rendered by the Caveators-respondents with the Corporation deserves to be counted for the purposes of pension, subject to the condition that they would deposit the amount of CPF contribution with the appellants in accordance with the rules, which has been withdrawn by them. It is, however, made clear that the period of service rendered by the respondents in the Corporation shall be counted only for the purposes of pensionary/retrial benefits.
The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) (T.P.S. MANN ) May 02, 2012 JUDGE JUDGE satish