Punjab-Haryana High Court
Charanjit Singh And Others vs Pepsu Road Transport Corporation And ... on 12 March, 2012
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.16690 of 2011
Date of Decision : March 12, 2012
Charanjit Singh and others .....Petitioners
versus
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
Present : Mr.Vikas Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the respondents.
-.-
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 petitioners seek a mandamus to count their "qualifying service" for the grant of pensionary benefits with effect from the dates of their joining the respondent-Corporation instead of the date they started contributing towards the Provident Fund.
[2] The petitioners served the respondent-Corporation in different capacities like Sub Inspector and Mechanics etc. before they retired on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.10.2010, 30.4.2011 and 30.4.2011, respectively. They had joined the Corporation w.e.f. 1.1.1977, 12.11.1979 and 12.09.1978, respectively. It appears that the petitioners started contributing towards the Contributing Provident Fund on completion of one year of service. The 'qualifying service' of the CWP No.16690 of 2011 [2] petitioners on their retirement has been counted by the Corporation with effect from the dates they started contributing toward the Contributory Provident Fund instead the initial dates of their appointment. [3] The aggrieved petitioners have approached this Court. [4] In the absence of any dispute on facts, learned counsel for the parties have been heard on the legal issue, namely, whether the "qualifying service" of the petitioners for the purpose of retiral benefits is reckonable from the dates they joined the Corporation or it shall be counted from the dates they started contributing towards the Contributory Provident Fund? [5] Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I find that the issue raised herein-above is no longer res-intra. This Court in the case of Kasturi Lal Khurana versus State of Punjab, 2003 (4) SCT 462 held that since the employees concerned were not called upon to deposit their contribution towards the Contributory Provident Fund from the dates of their initial appointment, no fault could be attributed to them and their entire service was required to be counted towards "qualifying service". [6] The view taken in Kasturi Lal Khurana's case (supra) was followed in CWP No.8285 of 2004 (Ved Parkash versus The State of Punjab and others) decided on 16.9.2010 wherein also the service rendered by the writ-petitioner before he started contributing his share towards the Contributory Provident Fund was directed to be taken into account as a part of 'qualifying service'.
[7] The Single Bench decision in Ved Parkash's case (supra) was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court while dismissing LPA No.207 of CWP No.16690 of 2011 [3] 2011 (PEPSU Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and another vesus Ved Parkash and another) vide order dated 3.2.2011.
[8] It may be appropriate at this stage to refer Regulation 6 of the PEPSU Road Transport Corporation Employees Pension/Gratuity and General Provident Fund Regulations, 1992, relied upon by the Corporation to count the 'qualifying service' from the date an employee starts contributing towards the Contributory Provident Fund and the same reads as follows:-
"6. Qualifying Service: (1) The qualifying service will be taken into account with effect from the date of an existing employee started contributing towards the Contributory Provident Fund.
(2) The service of an employee shall not qualify for retirement benefits under the said regulations unless:
(i) he attains the age of eighteen years;
(ii) he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed except for which it is otherwise provident by special rules or contract; and (3) The leave admissible under the Corporation regulations and under the instructions issued by the Corporation from time to time, shall qualify for pension but leave without pay and period of suspension, overstay of leave not subsequently regularized under the above said regulations and the period of break in service shall not be reckoned as qualifying service. (4) In a case where the total qualifying service is less than 10 years no pension benefit shall be admissible."
[9] Somewhat similar worded Rule, namely, Rule-6 of the Punjab Privately Managed Recognized Aided Schools Retirement Benefits Scheme, 1992, was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Ram Lubhaya Khanna and others versus State of Punjab and another (2007 (3) SCT 780 and following the earlier decisions including Kasturi Lal Khurana's case (supra), it was held that "the ratio of the above mentioned CWP No.16690 of 2011 [4] judgment would apply to the facts of the instant case, inasmuch as, the provision made in clause 6(6) of the 1992 Scheme has to be read down to mean that qualifying service would commence from the date of continuous appointment or from an earlier date if the employee had started contributing to the Contributory Provident Fund. Therefore, the petitioners would be entitled to counting of their service with effect from the date of their appointment."
[10] The issue was re-agitated before this Court at the instance of the respondent-Corporation in CWP No.19292 of 2010 (Pritam Singh versus Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and others) decided on 23.2.2012 also but its plea was turned down, observing that "the service rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 6.2.1971 to 1.1.1972 was with the respondent-Corporation only. There appears to be no justification to exclude the said service from 'qualifying service' for the grant of pensionary benefits, though the petitioner shall be required to deposit the arrears of CPF drawn for the said period alongwith interest that may be determined by the Corporation."
[11] Following the above cited precedents, there can be no other conclusion but to allow the present writ petition subject to the same terms and conditions and the time schedule as has been prescribed in operative part of the order dated 23.2.2012 passed in Pritam Singh's case (supra).
[12] Ordered accordingly. [13] Dasti. March 12, 2012 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE