Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chattar Pal vs Haryana State Agriculture Marketing ... on 27 August, 2010
Author: Permod Kohli
Bench: Permod Kohli
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.19762 of 2009
Date of Decision: 27.08.2010
Chattar Pal
........Petitioner
Versus
Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and others
.......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI
Present: Mr. J.K.Goel, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Sheoran, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Mr. R.D.Sharma, DAG, Haryana
for the respondents.
******
PERMOD KOHLI, J.(Oral)
Petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the PWD (B&R) department on 03.09.1971 on regular basis against a sanctioned post. While serving in the said department, petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Secretary through proper channel after getting permission of the department in the State Agriculture Marketing Board (hereinafter referred to "the Board"). Petitioner was duly selected on the post of Assistant Secretary. He was relieved from PWD (B&R) department and joined the Board on 11.12.1981. Petitioner represented to respondent No.1-Board for counting his service rendered in PWD (B&R) department, for the period from 03.09.1971 to 11.12.1981, for the purposes of pensionary benefits. The request of the petitioner, however, was rejected on 19.06.1998. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Department, Chandigarh. The Appellate Authority treated his appeal as revision petition and accepted the CWP No.19762 of 2009 -2- same and remitted back the matter to the Board for fresh order. After making some clarifications, the Board decided to accept the contention of the petitioner. The Board, however, asked Superintending Engineer, PWD (B&R) Branch, vide letter dated 06.11.2008 (Annexure P-26), to deposit the pro rata pension, gratuity, leave salary pension contribution etc. along with interest with respondent No.1-Board. Aforesaid letter was replied by the Superintending Engineer, vide his communication dated 10.11.2008 (Annexure P-27) stating that the State has no liability for the payment of the amount. The Board continued to make requests to the Government for payment of the proportionate liability as is evident from Annexures P-28 to P-30.
In the meantime, petitioner retired from the service of the Board on 31.05.2008 after attaining the age of superannuation. Receiving no response from the State or Board, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction for counting his service rendered in the PWD (B&R) Branch from 03.09.1971 to 11.12.1981 towards the service of the Board for the purposes of pensionary and retiral benefits.
The State of Haryana has issued the government instructions dated 07.01.2006 for counting the period rendered in one organization to another permissible organization, where an employee is appointed.
The case of the petitioner is examined by Para-6 of the aforesaid government instructions, which reads as under:-
"On appointment from pensionable Organization to pensionable Organization:-
The Government/State Autonomous Body will discharge their pension liability by passing 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 upto to the date of appointment in a CWP No.19762 of 2009 -3- State Autonomous Body or any Department under Haryana Government, as the case may be, irrespective of the fact that 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 CDR-Vol. II as amended from time to time."
The aforesaid government instructions clearly provide that State has to contribute pro rata, retiral/pensionary benefits for the period, the petitioner remained in the service of the State. The State has, however, neither complied with these government instructions, nor deposited any amount to respondent No.1 for payment to the petitioner. The State cannot deny its responsibility/liability in view of the clear and categorical government instructions.
In view of the above, this petition is allowed.
Respondent-State is directed to deposit the pro rata retiral benefits with respondent No.1-Board. Respondent No.1-Board shall count the service rendered by the petitioner in the PWD (B&R) department towards the qualifying service for payment of pensionary/retiral benefits.
Let the retiral/pensionary benefits of the petitioner be re- determined and paid to the petitioner within a period of three months. The petitioner shall be entitled to statutory interest wherever payable and on all other benefits, interest at the rate of 6%. The pro rata interest shall be paid by the State for unnecessary delaying the pensionary contribution and rest of the interest shall be paid by the Board.
27.08.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) Gagan JUDGE