Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India & Ors vs B.N.Jaggi & Ors on 3 October, 2013
Bench: Surya Kant, Surinder Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB
AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP No.10597-CAT of 2002. [O&M]
Date of Decision:3rd October, 2013.
Union of India & Ors. Petitioners through
Mr. P.C.Goyal, Advocate
Versus
B.N.Jaggi & Ors. Respondents through
Mr. Pawan Gaur, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The respondent served the petitioner - Department w.e.f. 24.01.1963 till he was retired from service w.e.f. 10.09.1975. In this manner he served the Department for 12 years, 7 months and 17 days. The question was whether the respondent is entitled to be paid pension for the above stated service?
The Tribunal has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 6365 of 1988 [Yashwant Hari Katakkar Vs. Union of India & Ors.] decided on 19.09.1994 where the employee had served for 18½ years but was denied pension on the ground that he was not a permanent employee. The Supreme Court held that it would be travesty of justice if the retiree was denied pensionary benefits simply on the ground that he was not a permanent employee of the Department even after serving for 18½ years.
Gupta Dinesh 2013.11.07 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Hihg Court Chandigarh
It is not in dispute that in the instant case also, the respondent was denied pension only on the ground that he did not hold the post on permanent basis. The Tribunal has, thus, rightly relied upon the cited decision rendered in some-what similar circumstances and accepted the claim of the respondent.
It is informed by learned counsel for the respondent that the order passed by the Tribunal has already been implemented even before filing of the writ petition and pension stands granted to him.
For the reasons afore-stated and also keeping in view the fact that the respondent retired way back in the year 1975, we decline to interfere with the impugned order.
Dismissed.
( SURYA KANT )
JUDGE
October 03, 2013. ( SURINDER GUPTA )
dinesh JUDGE
Gupta Dinesh
2013.11.07 15:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Hihg Court Chandigarh