Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjit Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 20 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007401
1 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2025 06:17:03 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007401
CWP No.1396 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007401
CWP No.5634 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007403
2. By way of these writ pe ons filed under Ar cle 226/227 of the
Cons tu on of India, pe oners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of
cer orari for quashing the impugned order dated 24.07.2012 (Annexure P.14)
and order dated 27.05.2013 (Annexure P.15) passed by respondent No.4, to
be patently illegal arbitrary and uncons tu onal, whereby the pe oner has been treated as a new entrant in the service of Municipal Corpora on, Pa ala w.e.f. 17.03.2006 by ignoring his previous service rendered under respondent No.5 and by applying new Contributory Pension Scheme on the pe oner implemented w.e.f. 01.01.2004, thereby denying his en tlement for release of gratuity and other re ral benefits a-er his re rement by coun ng his previous service rendered under respondent No.5. Pe oner further prays to direct the respondents not to treat the pe oner as a new entrant in service; and to grant him benefit of old pension scheme by taking into considera on his previous service rendered under respondent No.5 for the purpose of pension and other re ral benefits.
3.1 Pe oner was ini ally appointed as Chowkidar on temporary basis under Work Charge Rules in 1975 in Punjab Small Industries and Export Corpora on Limited (herein a er referred as 'PSIEC') - respondent N: 5. Services of the pe oner were regularised in February, 1997 and then vide an order dated 13.01.2006, his services were transferred to Municipal Corpora on, Pa ala - respondent N: 3 along with 21 other employees. Later on, consequent to the resolu on dated 31.05.2006 (Annexure P.7) passed by Municipal Corpora on, Pa ala for absorp on of the pe oner and other similar employees transferred from PSIEC, necessary approval was granted by respondent No.1 - State of Punjab vide le<er dated 15.11.2006 (Annexure P.9). Respondent No.5 - PSIEC then transferred the gratuity amount of the pe oner and other similar employees to Municipal Corpora on, Pa ala for the services rendered in PSIEC. Respondent No.5 also sent its share of leave encashment of employees to the Municipal Corpora on, Pa ala.
3.2 Pe oner then made a representa on for deduc on of his pension contribu on and for grant of benefit of pension under the old Page 2 of 10 2 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2025 06:17:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007401 CWP No.1396 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007401 CWP No.5634 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007403 Pension Scheme by coun ng his previous service rendered in PSIEC. However, the claim of the pe oner was declined vide impugned le<er dated 24.07.2012 (Annexure P.14) on account of some alleged agreement between respondents No.3 and 5. Therea-er, claim of the pe oner was referred to respondent No.4 - Deputy Controller, Local Audit, MC, Pa ala, who passed another order dated 27.05.2013 (Annexure P.15) declining the claim of the pe oner for payment of gratuity and coun ng of his previous service, by trea ng him as new entrant in service of municipal corpora on w.e.f. 17.03.2006. Pe oner re red on 30.06.2016.
3.3 The grievance put forth by the pe oner is that a-er his ini al appointment on work-charge basis followed by regularisa on in February, 1997, he was transferred to Municipal Corpora on, Pa ala against a regular sanc oned post and on his transfer, he was absorbed in the services of the Municipal Corpora on against regular sanc oned post and, therefore, he is en tled to coun ng of his previous service rendered in PSIEC before his transfer and absorp on in Municipal Corpora on, Pa ala for the purpose of his pensionary benefits on deposit of employer's share of Provident Fund Contribu on. Pe oner has alleged that ac on of the respondents to be in viola on of Rule 2 (j) of the Punjab Municipal Employees Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1994.
4.1 In their reply, respondents No.1 and 2 submit that the post of Chowkidar is non-provincialised Cadre, of which Municipal Corpora on, Pa ala is the competent appoin ng/ punishing authority and that no ac on of respondents No.1 and 2 is under challenge.
4.2 As per the reply filed by respondent No.4, the claim of the pe oner is not tenable, as he was employee of PSIEC and he along with other employees joined the service of Municipal Corpora on, Pa ala on 17.03.2006. It is contended that as per the agreement signed between Commissioner, Municipal Corpora on, Pa ala and Chief Engineer PSIEC (Annexure P.17), date of appointment of the employee is to be considered from the date of joining the Municipal Corpora on, Pa ala i.e. 17.03.2006 Page 3 of 10 3 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2025 06:17:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007401 CWP No.1396 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007401 CWP No.5634 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007403 and so, the benefit of previous service of PSIEC is not admissible to these employees. Respondent No.4 has thus defended the impugned orders dated 24.07.2012 (Annexure P.14) and dated 27.05.2013 (Annexure P.15).
4.3 Respondent No.5 - PSIEC concedes that services of the pe oner were regularised and then the same were transferred to the Municipal Corpora on, Pa ala.
4.4 In separate reply filed by respondent No.3 - Municipal Corpora on, Pa ala, it is submi<ed that a-er his transfer from PSIEC, the services of the pe oner were absorbed in Municipal Corpora on, Pa ala on 17.03.2006 vide an agreement Annexure R.3/1. It is submi<ed that during course of audit of another employee, respondent No.4 - the Deputy Controller (Local Audit) vide impugned le<er dated 27.05.2013 (Annexure P.15) raised objec on that since in the present case, the official (pe oner) was merged in the services of Municipal Corpora on on 17.03.2006, therefore, his date of appointment was to be treated from the date of merger. It is also submi<ed that Punjab Government has implemented Contributory Pension Scheme from 01.01.2004, under which Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume II are not applicable to the employees appointed a-er 01.01.2004. It is also the conten on of this respondent that no pension scheme was applicable to the pe oner in his parent department and that the pe oner cannot be granted any benefit of Punjab Municipal Corpora on Employees' pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1994, which are applicable to the employees, who are appointed on or a-er 1st day of April, 1990.
4.5 Thus, all the respondents have opposed the claim of the pe oner.
5. This Court has considered submissions of both the sides and have perused the paper book.
6. This is not in dispute that the pe oner was ini ally appointed to the post of Chowkidar in PSIEC on temporary basis under work-charge rules way back in August, 1975. Services of the pe oner along with others Page 4 of 10 4 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2025 06:17:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007401 CWP No.1396 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007401 CWP No.5634 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007403 were regularised by PSIEC vide an office order dated 19.02.1997 (Annexure P.3). The services of the pe oner along with 21 other employees were later on transferred from PSIEC, Chandigarh to Municipal Corpora on, Pa ala vide Office Order dated 13.01.2006 (Annexure P.6). Later on, resolu on was passed by the Municipal Corpora on, Pa ala to absorb these employees of PSIEC and approval was granted by the government as per le<er dated 15.11.2006 (Annexure P.9). It is further evident that amount of gratuity and leave encashment of the pe oner and other employees was transferred to Municipal Corpora on, Pa ala as per le<ers dated 15.03.1997 and 18.10.2007 (Annexure P.10 and P.11) respec vely.
7. The ques on to be considered is whether the services rendered by the pe oner in PSIEC is liable to be counted for the pensionary benefits as is claimed by him; or whether he is to be treated as a new entrant w.e.f. 17.03.2006 as per the stand of respondent No.3.
8. The Punjab Municipal Employees Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1994 are applicable to the employees of the Commi<ee, who were appointed on or a-er first day of April, 1990 on whole me regular basis; and who were working immediately before first day of April, 1990 on whole me regular basis. Rule 2(j) of the Rules 1994 (ibid) provides as under:-
"(j) 'Qualifying service' means the service rendered under a commi<ee for which an employee is paid from the municipal fund and shall include any service rendered under the Government of Punjab, an Improvement Trust, a Corpora on or any other Public Sector Undertaking immediately before joining the service."
9. It is, thus, clear that qualifying service not only includes the service rendered by an employee under the Commi<ee, but also includes any service rendered by such an employee either under the Government of Punjab, or an Improvement Trust, or a Corpora on or any Public Sector undertaking immediately before joining the service.
10. Since in the present case, before joining at Municipal Corpora on, Pa ala - respondent No.3 in 2006 upon his transfer, the Page 5 of 10 5 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2025 06:17:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007401 CWP No.1396 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007401 CWP No.5634 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007403 pe oner was working with respondent No.5 - Corpora on, therefore, the service rendered by him with respondent No.5-Corpora on is to be included within the meaning of 'qualifying service' for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
11.1 Similar issue was also considered by this Court in CWP No.27403 of 2013 tled as "Om Parkash v. State of Punjab and others", decided on 07.12.2023. In that case, pe oner had sought the relief of coun ng his qualifying service rendered with Punjab State Civil Supplies Corpora on (PUNSUP) from 12.10.1978 for the purpose of pension. This Court referred to "Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab and others", 2015(3) SCT 683, wherein it was held as under:-
"6. Thus, the order dated 03.08.2010, fixing the pension of the pe oner without coun ng his earlier service with PUNSUP is illegal. The resigna on submi<ed to the PUNSUP will not wash away the earlier service of the pe oner for the purpose of coun ng service in the la<er department towards pension etc. It is held that the earlier service from 11.04.1975 to 19.07.1993 of the pe oner be counted towards pension etc.
7. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 03.08.2010, is quashed and the respondents are directed to re-consider and decide the case of the pe oner in the light of the judgments in Smt. Krishna Khullar's and Ram Singh's case (supra), within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a cer fied copy of this judgment. In case, the pe oner is found en tled to any consequen al monetary benefit, the same shall be released to him forthwith."
11.2 This Court in Om Parkash's case (supra) also referred to "State of Haryana and another v. Shadi Lal Malik (deceased through his LRs) and others", 2014(4) SCT 713 and then held as under:-
"9. Taking note of the aforesaid aspects, this Court in Mohan Lal's case (supra) by relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Gurmail Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, 1992 (7) SLR 744, allowed the writ pe on of the pe oners therein by holding that the services rendered by the employees in a corpora on fully funded and administered by the Page 6 of 10 6 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2025 06:17:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007401 CWP No.1396 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007401 CWP No.5634 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007403 State of Haryana are to be counted with the number of years of service rendered by them in a department of the government to consider their eligibility for grant of pension.
10. In view of the above, even an employee who worked with the State Autonomous Body and controlled by the State Government, would have to be given the benefit of his service rendered by him there for the purpose of coun ng the qualifying service.
11. The pe oner was appointed on regular basis and, therefore, the said period of service is liable to be counted. The similar issue has already been decided in Mohan Lal's case (supra).
12. In view thereto, the writ pe on deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to count the said period of service for the purpose of qualifying service for pension and accordingly the pension of the pe oner shall be revised and the payment shall be released. It is made clear that the gratuity which the pe oner received for the period of service rendered with the PUNSUP, has to be deposited back/adjusted while calcula ng the arrears of revised pensionary benefits. Exercise shall be done within three months henceforth."
11.3 The aforesaid decision of learned Single Judge has been upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench in LPA No.2445 of 2024 tled 'State of Punjab & Others vs. Om Prakash & Others' decided on 04.10.2024.
12. Respondent No.3 has opposed the claim of the pe oner on account of an agreement between the Chief Engineer, PSIEC (respondent No.5) and the Commissioner, Municipal Corpora on, Pa ala, the copy of which is Annexure P-17, perusal of which would reveal that the said le<er dated 29.06.2006 was sent by the Chief Engineer, PSIEC to the Commissioner, Municipal Corpora on, Pa ala, regarding the signing of the agreement in respect of transfer of 22 employees from PSIEC to Municipal Corpora on, Pa ala. Clauses Nos.3 and 4 of the same read as under:-
"3. The date of appointment of the officials shall be considered from the date of absorp on with the M.C. There, officials shall work on the terms and condi ons with the Municipal Corpora on as on they were with the parent department.
Page 7 of 10 7 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2025 06:17:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007401 CWP No.1396 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007401 CWP No.5634 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007403
4. No benefit of the pension service shall be at the tail end of the employees of the Municipal Corpora on."
13. On the basis of above-said condi ons in the agreement, it is contended that as the pe oner was absorbed with the Municipal Corpora on, Pa ala in March, 2006, therefore, he is a new entrant and that previous service rendered by him in respondent No.5-Corpora on is not to be counted and so, the benefit of pension is not admissible to him.
14. There is no merit in the above-said conten on of respondent No.3. Firstly, the said agreement (Annexure P-17) has been executed a-er the transfer of the pe oner and similarly situated employees from respondent No.5 to respondent No.3, inasmuch as they were transferred as per order dated 13.01.2006 (Annexure P-6). Secondly, the pe oners are not signatory to the agreement (Annexure P-17). The said agreement was not in mated/conveyed to the pe oners nor their consent was taken, before transferring them to Municipal Corpora on, Pa ala from PSIEC. The said agreement (Annexure P-17) executed inter se respondent Nos.3 and 5 does not tantamount to any rule or bye-law to be binding upon the pe oners.
15. As such, it is held that on the basis of the agreement (Annexure P-17), the pe oners cannot be treated to be new entrants in the Municipal Corpora on, Pa ala, nor the benefit of previous service rendered by them with respondent No.5 can be denied to them.
16. It was also contended during the course of arguments that being the new entrants in 2006 in Municipal Corpora on, Pa ala, the pe oners will be governed by the New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme issued by the Punjab Government, Department of Finance vide le<er No.3/72/2003- 3FPPC/7280 dated 12.12.2006 (Annexure P-22).
17. There is no merit in the conten on, as bare perusal of Annexure P-22 would reveal that it is applicable only to those employees, who are appointed on or a-er 01.01.2004. As it has been found that prior to their transfer to Municipal Corpora on, Pa ala in 2006, pe oners had rendered service with respondent No.5-Corpora on, which is to be counted towards Page 8 of 10 8 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2025 06:17:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007401 CWP No.1396 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007401 CWP No.5634 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007403 their qualifying service, therefore, pe oners are not to be governed under the New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme.
18. It is further the conten on of learned counsel of respondent No.3 that there was no pension scheme applicable to the pe oners in their parent department, i.e. respondent No.5 and as such, they are not en tled for any pensionary benefits a-er their transfer to respondent No.3-Municipal Corpora on, Pa ala.
19. There is no merit in the conten on, as the Provident Fund amount of the pe oners deposited by the previous employer, i.e. respondent No.5 of the pe oners with Regional Provident Fund Commissioner can be transferred to the Municipal Corpora on, Pa ala and then, pe oners will be en tled all re ral benefits including pension. Similar direc on was given by this Court in CWP No.16644 of 2008, tled as "Darshan Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and others", decided on 21.02.2011, copy of which has been annexed by the pe oners as Annexure P-20.
20. On account of en re discussion as above, the present writ pe ons are hereby accepted. It is directed that respondent No.5 shall transfer the provident fund amount of the pe oners for the service as rendered by them in respondent N:5/corpora on with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Chandigarh, to the Municipal Corpora on, Pa ala - respondent N: 3. The pe oners will facilitate in the said transfer. The pe oners will be also at liberty to approach the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Chandigarh for transferring of the contributory amount deposited by respondent No.5 - Corpora on in the respec ve provident fund accounts of the pe oners to the Municipal Corpora on, Pa ala. In case, the pe oners have already withdrawn the said amount, they shall deposit the same alongwith interest at the permissible rate with the Municipal Corpora on, Pa ala. On deposit/transfer of the said amount, respondent No.3 - Municipal Corpora on, Pa ala is directed to count the service rendered by the pe oners in respondent No.5-Corpora on for the purpose Page 9 of 10 9 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2025 06:17:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007401 CWP No.1396 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007401 CWP No.5634 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007403 of re ral benefits. The needful shall be done within a period of 02 months from the date of transfer of the such amount by the pe oners, in accordance with law.
21. Both the pe ons are allowed accordingly.
Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected case file.
January 20, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
Renu/Sarita JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes
Whether reportable? Yes
Page 10 of 10
10 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 21-01-2025 06:17:04 :::