Punjab-Haryana High Court
Salwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 29 July, 2008
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CWP No. 19101 of 2006
Date of decision:29.7.2008
Salwinder Singh
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Mohd.Salim, Advocate,
for Mr.Rakesh Kumar, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab,
for the respondents.
****
JUDGMENT
M.M.KUMAR, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the orders dated 22.1.2004 and 8.12.2004 (Annexures P-4 and P-7 respectively), whereby his claim for grant of pension has been declined. He has been retired on 31.1.2001 after having rendered service as Welfare Worker in the office of District Sainik Welfare, Fatehgarh Sahib. It is the conceded position that the petitioner has rendered 9 years, 11 months and 21 days service and there is a dispute as to whether he could be deemed to have rendered 10 years service as per the Civil Service Rules and the instructions dated 17.8.1983 and 31.12.1997. Rule 6.1 of the Civil Service Rules along with the aforementioned instructions came up for consideration CWP No. 19101 of 2006 -2- before this Court in CWP No.8012 of 2003. The petition was allowed on 8.7.2004 by a Division Bench of this Court (P-11). In that case also the petitioner had rendered less than 10 years service. The Division Bench has cited the following para of instructions dated 31.12.1997:-
"I am directed to say that in accordance with the existing provisions of Rule 6.1 of Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II, fraction of a year equal to six months and above is treated as a completed six, monthly period for the purpose of calculating of pension of Government employee. The Governor of Punjab is now pleased to decide that in calculating the length of qualifying service for the purpose of pension, a fraction of a year equal to three months and above shall be treated as a completed one half year and reckoned as qualifying service for determining the amount of pension."
The Division Bench interpreted the instructions and held that 3 months period was to be taken as a fraction for completed one half years, whereas, earlier six months period was taken as a fraction of one year. Therefore, the benefit of instructions was extended to the employee, who had rendered 9 years 9 months 17 days of service.
In the present case, the petitioner has rendered 9 years 11 months and 21 days of service and it is claimed that the matter is squarely covered by the Division Bench's judgment rendered in CWP No.8012 of 2003.
When the matter came up for consideration on 28.7.2008, CWP No. 19101 of 2006 -3- learned State counsel has sought time to seek instructions as to whether the Division Bench's judgment, rendered in CWP No.8012 of 2003 (Amrik Singh vs. State of Punjab) was still holding field or whether it was challenged before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. At the resumed hearing, learned State counsel has placed on record a copy of the order dated 14.3.2005 (Mark 'A') showing that the SLP has been dismissed. Learned State counsel has also made some efforts to persuade us to take a view different than the one taken by the Division Bench by citing heading of Chapter 6 of the Civil Services Rules. However, the view taken by the Division Bench is binding on us and even otherwise there is no reason for us to differ the Division Bench. The instructions dated 31.12.1997 have been issued in pursuance to Rule 6.1 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules and interpreted by adopting principle of beneficial construction.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be deemed to have rendered 10 years qualifying service. Let his pension and pensionary benefits now be calculated and be paid to him within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In view of some controversy concerning interpretation of Rules we refrain from passing an order awarding any cost or interest to the petitioner.
(M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) JUDGE July 29, 2008 anita