Punjab-Haryana High Court
Som Nath & Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 23 January, 2013
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
CWP No. 1432 of 2012 -1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 23.01.2013
1. CWP No. 1432 of 2012
Som Nath & others
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
............ Respondents
*****
2. CWP No. 2309 of 2012
Liquat Ali
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
............ Respondents
*****
3. CWP No. 1518 of 2012
Ram Lal & others
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
............ Respondents
*****
4. CWP No. 6234 of 2011
Baldev Singh & others
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
............ Respondents
*****
5. CWP No. 6235 of 2011
Meharban Singh & others
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
............ Respondents
*****
6. CWP No. 6236 of 2011
CWP No. 1432 of 2012 -2-
Jatinder Singh & others
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
............ Respondents
*****
7. CWP No. 22756 of 2012
Johar Singh & others
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
............ Respondents
*****
8. CWP No. 22817 of 2012
Malook Chand & others
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
............ Respondents
*****
9. CWP No. 14906 of 2012
Puran Singh & others
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
............ Respondents
*****
10. CWP No. 17724 of 2012
Sukhmandar Singh & others
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
............ Respondents
*****
11. CWP No. 9204 of 2012
Tarsem Dass & others
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
............ Respondents
CWP No. 1432 of 2012 -3-
*****
12. CWP No. 16418 of 2011
Harbhajan Singh
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
............ Respondents
*****
13. CWP No. 22816 of 2012
Harbhajan Singh & others
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
............ Respondents
*****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present:- Mr. Ranjivan Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP No. 16418 of 2011 and
CWP Nos. 1432, 2309 & 1518 of 2012.
Mr. S.K. Arora, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 9204, 14906 & 17724 of 2012.
Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 6234, 6235 & 6236 of 2011
and CWP Nos. 22816 & 22756 of 2012.
Mr. Inder Pal Goyat, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Ajay Gupta, Advocate
for respondents No. 2 & 4 in CWP No. 16418 of 2011.
Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocate
for respondents No. 4 to 6 in CWP Nos. 6234, 6235 & 6236 of
2011.
*****
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.(ORAL)
By this order, I propose to dispose of thirteen writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos. 6234, 6235, 6236 & 16418 of 2011 and 1432, 2309, 1518, 22756, 22817, 14906, 17724, 9204 & 22816 of 2012 as the common CWP No. 1432 of 2012 -4- question of law and facts are involved therein.
Counsel for the parties are ad idem that these cases can be dealt with together and decided by a single order.
For the sake of convenience facts are being taken from CWP No. 1432 of 2012.
Petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 21.6.2010 (Annexure P-5) whereby the petitioners have been allotted Permanent Pension Account Number (PPAN) instead of new General Provident Fund (GPF). This the petitioners contend, has been done by the respondents treating the petitioners to be covered under the New Contributory Pension Scheme dated 12.12.2006 (Annexure P-6). Counsel contends that the said scheme would not be applicable to the petitioners as the petitioners came into service much prior to 1.1.2004, scheme came into force and the said scheme if applicable will be to those employees who are appointed on or after coming into force the scheme i.e. 1.1.2004. It has been asserted that the claim of the petitioners is covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No. 2371 of 2010 titled Harbans Lal vs. The State of Punjab and others, decided on 31.8.2010, wherein this Court has held that even if the appointment of an employee was on daily wage or work-charge basis and not as regular employee prior to 1.1.2004 they shall be covered by the General Provident Fund Scheme and not by the New Contributory Pension Scheme. It has further been stated that Special Leave Petition preferred by the State of Punjab and others vs. Harbans Lal against the judgment dated 31.8.2010 passed by the Division Bench of this Court stands dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 30.7.2012. Accordingly, prayer has been made that the writ petition be CWP No. 1432 of 2012 -5- allowed with a direction to the respondents to allot them the General Provident Fund number instead the Permanent Pension Account Number as has been allotted to them vide order dated 26.10.2010. It has been asserted that the petitioners were appointed on work charge/daily wages basis prior to coming into force the new scheme on 1.1.2004 and, therefore, in the light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court they are entitled to the benefit as has been claimed by them in these writ petitions.
Counsel for the respondents has asserted that the New Contributory Pension Scheme came into force w.e.f. 1.1.2004 and the petitioners were although regularised in service in the year 2004 but after 1.1.2004 and, therefore, they are to be covered under the New Contributory Pension Scheme. The petitioners have rightly been held to be governed by the New Contributory Pension Scheme. Writ petition is, therefore, devoid of merit.
Counsel for the respondents, however, could not dispute the factum that the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Harbans Lal's case (supra) would support the claim of the petitioners and with the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court against the said judgment, it has attained finality.
I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.
In the light of the admitted facts that the petitioners were appointed prior to 1.1.2004, although, their services have been regularised after 1.1.2004 and in the light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Harbans Lal's case (supra), on going through the same I am of the considered view that the claim of the petitioners is covered in their favour CWP No. 1432 of 2012 -6- on all fours. The stand as has been projected by the respondents in the written statements filed in the cases, have been duly considered by the Division Bench and rejected. The operative part of the judgment reads as under :-
"From the above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the entire daily wage service of the petitioner from 1988 till the date of his regularization is to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. He will be deemed to be in govt. service prior to 1.1.2004. The new Re-structured Defined Contribution Pension Scheme (Annexure P-1) has been introduced for the new entrants in the Punjab Government Service w.e.f. 01.01.2004, will not be applicable to the petitioner. The amendment made vide Annexure P-2 amending the Punjab Civil Services Rules, cannot be further amended by issuing clarification/instructions dated 30.5.2008 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner will continue to be governed by the GPF Scheme and is held entitled to receive pensionary benefits as applicable to the employees recruited in the Punjab Govt. Services prior to 1.1.2004. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Accordingly respondents are directed to treat the whole period of work charge service as qualified service for pension because accordingly to clarification issued on 30.5.2008 (Annexure P-3), the new defined Contributory Pension Scheme would be applicable to all those employees who have been working prior to 1.1.2004 but have been regularized thereafter. Let his pension and arrears be calculated and paid to him expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order."
It is also not disputed that the special leave to appeal preferred by the State against the Division Bench judgment of this Court has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 30.7.2012. The Division Bench judgment having attained finality is to be given effect to by the respondents.
CWP No. 1432 of 2012 -7-
In view of the above, the present writ petitions are allowed. Impugned orders are hereby quashed. Directions are issued to the respondents as has been issued by the Division Bench of this Court in Harbans Lal's case (supra), and shall cover the claim of the petitioners in these writ petitions as well. These directions be complied with within a period of two months.
Counsel for the petitioners states that in some of the cases even salaries have not been paid to the petitioners. If that be so, direction is issued to the respondents to release the salaries of the petitioners within a period of one month from today.
23.01.2013 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 'sp' JUDGE