Punjab-Haryana High Court
Charan Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 11 July, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2007(1)SLJ322(P&H)
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: H.S. Bedi, Ranjit Singh
JUDGMENT Ranjit Singh, J.
1. The petitioner, a retired Head-master, has filed the present petition seeking payment of pension and retiral benefits. Respondent-Government says that he cannot be paid pension as his service rendered in the school while it was run by private Management, though receiving aid, cannot be counted as service for the purposes of grant of retiral benefits.
2. A few facts may be noticed.
The petitioner was appointed as S.S. Master on 4.9.1965 in Sant Hari Singh Khalsa High School Jian, Chabbewal, Hoshiarpur. With effect from December 1967, this school became an aided school though run by the private management. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Headmaster with effect from 1.1.1986, On 31.8.2000, the Management of this school gifted it to the Punjab Government. All the employees working in the above mentioned school were also absorbed in the service of the Punjab Government on temporary basis subject to the final approval of the concerned recruiting agency. The services of the petitioner were regularized with effect from 31.8.2000 as headmaster vide order dated 25.3.2003. The petitioner was also granted annual increment. On 30.4.2002, the petitioner retired as Headmaster from the school, which came to be known as Government High School, Chabbewal, Hoshiarpur. He made a claim for grant of retiral/pensionary benefits, which were not released to him. It is disclosed in the petition that the Punjab Government had framed rules known as Privately Managed Recognized School Employees (Security of Service) Rules, 1981 for grant of pensionary benefits to employees working in the privately managed recognized aided schools. The persons governed by these rules are entitled to superannuation pension, death-cum-retirement gratuity, family pension, invalid pension, compensation pension, compassionate allowance and retiring pension. It is further being disclosed in the petition that the petitioner had been contributing provident fund with effect from 1.12.1968 and continued to do so upto 30.11.2000 till remained in the school while it was privately managed and recognized aided school. It is, accordingly, claimed that the petitioner is entitled to grant of retiral benefits including pension for which he submitted a claim. Initially, certain objections were raised by the Indian Audit and Accounts Department. The petitioner had resubmitted his case after compliance with the objections raised. In addition to other requirement, the audit department had demanded certificate to the effect that his services rendered before taking of the school by Government was countable as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary/retiral benefits. As per the petitioner, this certificate was not being released by the District Education Officer. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had given a representation disclosing the names of the persons, who had retired from the same school and had been granted pension. Still nothing was done whereupon the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
3. On notice being served, written statement has been filed by the District Education Officer (S), Hoshiarpur on behalf of all the respondents. Relying upon the terms and conditions contained in the order taking over management of the school, Annexure R-l, it has been pleaded that the service rendered by the petitioner prior to 31.8.2000 cannot be counted as qualifying service for the pensionary benefits as per the terms and conditions contained in Annexure R-l. In this regard, support has also been sought from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 2500/95, copy of which has been annexed as R-2.
4. The petitioner has filed replication rebutting the contentions raised in the reply. It has been stated that the petitioner is entitled to pension and retiral benefits as his service in the school prior to it's take over by the Government was pensionable one. Accordingly, he has pleaded that his service rendered prior to the taking over this school is required to be counted towards pension and retiral benefits. Petitioner has also contended that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would not be applicable to his case as the petitioner in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, was not entitled to any pension for his service rendered prior to the taking over the college by the Government. The petitioner has further stressed that the respondents have not been able to effectively respond to the averments made by him that persons similarly situated as is the case of the petitioner had been granted pension.
5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. It cannot be denied that the scheme for grant of pension to those teachers serving in privately managed schools receiving Government aid are not entitled to grant of pension. Accordingly, even if the management of this school had not been taken over by the Government with effect from 31.8.2000, the petitioner would have received pension and other retiral benefits. Can, in this background, the petitioner be made to loose his entire service rendered prior to taking over management of the school by the Government by invoking the terms of gift deed ? Situation may have been different if the petitioner had not been entitled to grant of pension or retiral benefits for service while it was under private management. Justifying the grant of pension and retiral benefits to S/Shri Mohinder Singh, Mohinder Singh Toor, Smt. Prasin Kaur and Ranjan Dass, referred to by the petitioner in his representation Annexure P-5, the respondents have stated that these persons had retired from service while the school had not been taken over by the Government and was privately managed Government aided institution. The petitioner has lost his entire service merely because the school was gifted and taken over by the Government Discrimination here is clear and apparent. Clearly, he would have received pension if he had retired prior to the taking over of the school by Government can't the petitioner now pray for pension for his service rendered in the school prior to it's take over. I think, he can. Merely because the petitioner has retired on a date by which the management of the school had gifted the same to the Government cannot lead to a situation so dreadful for the petitioner to disentitle him for pension and retiral benefits. It is conceded position that the service rendered by the petitioner while the school was privately managed and aided one was pensionable. Change of management and taking over of school by the Government cannot lead to changing the nature of the service if it otherwise was countable towards pension. Counsel for the petitioner, in our view, is justified in submitting that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Dev Dutt Kaushal, , is clearly distinguishable. This was a case where the service rendered in a college under the private management was not counted for the purpose of pension. In this background, it had been provided by the Government that such a teacher where the management of the college had been gifted must serve for 10 years under the Government for becoming entitled to pension. In the present case, the petitioner was entitled to pension even if the school had not been taken over by the Government. Rather, we find that the case of the petitioner would be covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chander Sain v. State of Haryana and Ors. . In this case, the appellant before the Supreme Court had joined service as Director of Physical Education in Government aided college, which was subsequently taken over by the State Government and he was absorbed in the service of the Government. The question arose whether gratuity payable to him was required to be counted on the basis of the entire period of service rendered by him while serving in the college privately managed or only by counting his service from the date the college was taken over by the State Government. Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case clearly held as under:
The mere fact that the appellant did not retire prior to the take over of the college by the State Government, but retired after it was so taken over, does not mean that he is not entitled to claim gratuity in respect of the period of service rendered by him before the college was taken over by the State. If the appellant would have been entitled to payment of gratuity on the basis of the service rendered by him when the college* was under private management if he had retired prior to the college being taken over by the State Government, there appears to be no reason, why the said period of service of the appellant while the college was under private management should be ignored for the purpose of computing gratuity payable to him. Merely because he retired after the college had been taken over by the State Government that shall not make any difference.
To our mind, the present case is fully covered by the above mentioned observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Since the petitioner was entitled to count his service rendered in the privately managed school prior to take over, he cannot now be held disentitled to count this service for grant of pension and retiral benefits because the school had been taken over by the Government. It cannot be denied that the petitioner can claim pension and other retiral benefits for his service rendered in the school while it was under private management and can ask for ignoring his service in the Government. Under such circumstances, he cannot be denied pension merely because the school was taken over by the Government. The service rendered by a teacher in private school receiving aid is now made pensionable and as such this service cannot be ignored for grant of pension. Accordingly, we allow the present writ petition and direct the respondents to count the entire service rendered by the petitioner in school including the one while it was being privately managed and before it was taken over by the Government in terms of the gift deed. The needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and all amounts due to the petitioner be released, failing which the petitioner will be entitled to the amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date it is due to the date of payment. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms with no order as to costs.