Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab And Another vs Rupinder Pal And Others on 8 November, 2012
Bench: A.K. Sikri, Rakesh Kumar Jain
LPA No. 108 of 2012 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 108 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 08.11.2012
State of Punjab and another
...Appellants
Versus
Rupinder Pal and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. J.S. Puri, Additional Advocate General, Punjab,
for the appellants.
Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate,
for the respondents.
****
A.K. SIKRI, C.J. (ORAL)
C.M. Nos. 240-241 of 2012 For the reasons mentioned in the applications, delay of 109 days in filing and 57 days in refiling the present appeal is condoned. LPA No. 108 of 2012
The respondents herein participated in the selection process for recruitment to the post of Multi-purpose Health Workers (Male), which was undertaken by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, pursuant to advertisement No. 01/2001, issued on 05.03.2001. All these respondents were duly selected by the Selection Board and recommended for appointment in the year 2001 itself. However, before they could be given the appointment, elections were declared in the State of Punjab and because of this event model code of LPA No. 108 of 2012 (O&M) -2- conduct was enforced, which mandated not to give any new appointments till the formation of the government after the elections.
Many persons similarly situated, as the respondents, who were also denied the benefit of appointment in the same manner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 20212 of 2002, which was decided by this Court on 19.12.2002, giving direction to the government to pass an appropriate speaking order on the legal notice dated 19.10.2002. The government considered the matter, but rejected the claims vide order dated 05.06.2003, which led to filing of fresh writ petitions and Civil Writ Petitions No. 12985 of 2003, 6445 of 2004 and 12769 of 2004 were filed by the respondents herein. These writ petitions were allowed relying upon the earlier Division Bench order passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 10315 of 2002, titled as Parveen Kumar and others Vs State of Punjab and others. In that case, this Court ruled that merely because fresh elections were announced, the appointments of these persons could not be put on hold or they could not be denied appointments thereafter with the formation of new government. To put it simply, the effect of that order was declaration to the effect that after the selection, these persons had got right to get the appointment which should have been given to them. All these persons were, thus, appointed which included the respondents as well on the basis of selections made in the year 2001, though these appointments were given after 2004. A significant development took place, in the meantime, which gave rise to fresh grievance to such appointees. It was the enforcement of the Contributory Pension Fund LPA No. 108 of 2012 (O&M) -3- Scheme dated 22.03.2004, which was made effective from 01.01.2004. With the introduction of this scheme, old pension scheme was replaced by 'New Defined Contribution Pension Scheme'.
In these circumstances, the question arose as to whether these persons, who were appointed on the basis of selections made in the year 2001, though after 2004, would be governed by the old scheme or they were not to be governed by the new scheme made applicable from 01.01.2004. This very issue was decided by a Single Bench of this Court in its judgement dated 12.05.2009 in Civil Writ Petition No. 20501 of 2008, titled as Parveen Kumar and another Vs State of Punjab and others. That judgement is accepted by the appellants and benefit to the petitioners in the said petition is given, as per which, they are entitled to be covered by the old Pension Scheme.
The respondents herein filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1244 of 2011, seeking similar benefit, which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 06.05.2011, holding that the matter is squarely covered by judgement dated 12.05.2009. The order of the learned Single Judge further reveals that this was the position which was agreed to by counsel for both the parties. Notwithstanding the same, present appeal is filed by the State and the submission is that the matter is not covered by the judgement dated 12.05.2009 and concession was wrongly given by the counsel for the State before the learned Single Judge.
LPA No. 108 of 2012 (O&M) -4-
The only distinguishing feature, which is sought to be projected is that in the appointment letters issued to the respondents herein, it was specifically mentioned that they were governed by the New Defined Contribution Pension Scheme. This is hardly a ground on the basis of which the respondents can be given different treatment than their counter-parts, who were the selectives of 2001, when the benefit of old pension scheme is given by the State itself to all other persons. The facts of the case of these respondents as well as the petitioners who are parties in Civil Writ Petition No. 20501 of 2008 decided on 12.05.2009 are identical, but such a benefit is denied to the respondents. Merely by making such a stipulation in the appointment letters, this benefit cannot be snatched away from them. We are, thus, of the opinion that the learned Single Judge rightly held that the matter is covered by the judgement dated 12.05.2009 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 20501 of 2008, titled as Parveen Kumar and another Vs State of Punjab and others.
Finding no merit in this appeal, the same is dismissed.
(A.K. SIKRI) CHIEF JUSTICE (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE 08.11.2012 Amodh