Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohinder Singh Ahalawat vs Haryana Urban Development Authority ... on 16 January, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
C.W.P. No.20343 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.20343 of 2008
Date of Decision.16.01.2012
Mohinder Singh Ahalawat, Deputy Superintendent (retd) son of Sh. Karan
Singh Ahlawat
.....Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Chief Administrator,
Sector 6, Panchkula (Haryana) and others
.....Respondents
Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Kohal Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Siddharth Batra, Advocate
for the HUDA.
Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
-.-
K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)
1. At the previous hearing on 29.08.2011, this Court has allowed for time for filing written statement on behalf of the State subject to payment of Rs.2,000/- as costs. Registry has reported that costs is not deposited. Learned counsel appearing for the State has however produced receipt issued by the Haryana State Legal Services Authority dated 22.09.2011. Written statement filed by the State is taken on record.
2. The writ petition is filed at the instance of a retiree from HUDA-1st respondent claiming the benefit of service that he had rendered in the Public Health Department in Government of Haryana C.W.P. No.20343 of 2008 -2- prior to his joining HUDA to be included for the length of service for computation of pension. It is brought on record that the petitioner had been working in the Public Health Department from 11.10.1971 to 28.05.1979 and after taking appropriate permission from the Public Health Department, he applied for the post as Assistant in HUDA and joined HUDA after submitting voluntary resignation. He continued with HUDA from 28.05.1979 to 08.09.2006 and when he made a claim for pension including the period that he had served with the Public Health Department, Government of Haryana, HUDA relied on a response secured from the Chief Secretary, Haryana that the service rendered previously cannot be counted.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the response of HUDA to deny petitioner's entitlement runs counter to the policy declared by the State through an office memorandum dated 07.01.2002 that includes in para No.6 as follows:-
"6. On appointment from pensionable organization to pensionable organization.
The Government/State Autonomous Body will discharge their pension liability by paying in lump sum as a one time payment, the pro-rata pension/service gratuity and death-cum-retirement gratuity for the period of service qualifying for pension up to the date of appointment in a State Autonomous Body or any Department under Haryana Government, as the case may be, irrespective of the fact the employee was permanent or temporary. The pro-rata pension on lump sum will be determined with reference to the commutation table in Chapter 11 of Punjab CSR Vol II, as amended from time to time."
4. The petitioner would contend that there was no scope for denial of the petitioner's right especially in view of Rule 4.19 (B) in Chapter VI of the Punjab Civil Services Rules relating to pension. The Rule is reproduced as under:-
C.W.P. No.20343 of 2008 -3-
4.19(b): Resignation of an appointment to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether permanent or temporary, service in which counts in full or in part, is not a resignation of public service.
In cases where an interruption in service is inevitable due to the two appointments being at different stations, such interruptions, not "exceeding the joining time permissible under the rules on transfer, shall be covered by grant of leave of any kind due to the Government employee on the date of relief or by formal condonation under Rule 4.23 to the extent to which the period is not covered by leave due to the Government employee.
Note: The previous service of a Government employee who is transferred to a temporary appointment is forfeited by his resigning the temporary appointment and taking up another temporary appointment of his own accord."
5. Learned counsel refers to a communication from office of the Executive Engineer, Public Health Department where there has been admission of the fact that he had joined HUDA only after taking permission from Public Health Department. Learned counsel relies on a judgment of this Court in M.M. Lal Bareja Vs. State of Haryana 1995 (2) SCT 178 where this Court has considered the relevant Rules 3.71 and 4.19 relating to the counting of service in Central or State Government when a person resigns the same in order to join another service, which is pensionable service. The Court held that resignation that is tendered while serving in the State or Central service prior to joining an autonomous body must be taken as a technical resignation and it should not be treated as a resignation from public service to deny to a person the computation of the period for the purpose of pension. The judgment in my view squarely governs the matter relating to this case.
6. Learned counsel for the State would contend that even as per Policy issued by the State Government on 07.01.2002, it is essential that C.W.P. No.20343 of 2008 -4- a person, who opts to avail of the benefit of past service as qualifying service for pension, he would be required to deposit the terminal benefits already availed by him from the previous employer to the extent of the employer's share in CPF/Gratuity along with interest thereon from the date of receipt of emoluments till the date of deposit thereof. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner immediately would respond to this objection by pointing out that there is a specific averment in the petition that he has not claimed any benefit from the Public Health Department at the time he tendered his resignation and joined the office of HUDA. There is no disqualification for the petitioner in any way from seeking for counting of service that he has rendered in Public Health Department for computation of pension claimed subsequently after his retirement from HUDA. The petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for.
7. The writ petition is allowed. The amount shall be calculated and released to the petitioner within two weeks from today. The amount of pension, which shall be computed and released will also bear interest @6% from the date when it fell due i.e. from the date when he retired.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 16, 2012 Pankaj*