Punjab-Haryana High Court
P.R. Malhotra vs State Of Haryana And Others on 14 September, 2011
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 16852 of 1991
Date of decision: 14.09.2011
P.R. Malhotra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Sukhdev Singh Kanwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State.
RANJIT SINGH J.
This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 16852 of 1991 and11281 of 1993.
The claim in these writ petitions is for directing the respondents to grant the benefit of pension or other pensionary benefits due to the petition for the service rendered by him even on the work charge basis with the respondent-State.
The petitioner was initially recruited on work-charge post of Mechanical Supervisor in the Tube-well Division, Delhi of Western Jamuna Canal Circle, Delhi. The petitioner earned promotion to the post of Chargeman, Assistant Foreman and then Foreman MVP. The petitioner also earned two advance increments in the year 1968. On re-organization of State of Punjab, the petitioner became employee of State of Haryana. The petitioner was further promoted as Special Foreman in the year 1971 and his services were regularized on 31.03.1972.
Civil Writ Petition No. 16852 of 1991 -2-
In April 1970, the State of Haryana incorporated MITC under the Companies Act. Tubewell Division of the Irrigation Department was shifted to MITC. The petitioner was also transferred to MITC. The grievance of the petitioner is that no consent was taken from him and this order was passed as a matter of routine. The petitioner had by then put in earned 18 years of service with the State when he was sent to respondent No. 3-Corporation. No benefit of his service rendered with the State has ever been given to the petitioner.
The petitioner continued to perform his duties in proper manner till he became due for superannuation on 30.09.1991. The petitioner approached the respondents for referring his matter for grant of pension for the service rendered by him with the State of Haryana. Pleading that primarily service rendered by the petitioner was required to be counted for the purpose of pension, the petitioner has approached this Court for issuing direction to the respondents to consider his claim for grant of pension or pensionary benefits in accordance with the rules for the service rendered by him with the respondent-State.
The writ petition was admitted. The counsel appearing for HSMITC has pointed out that the Corporation has been wound up and the petitioner had been paid all the benefits of the service rendered by him with the Corporation as were available under the rules. The grievance of the petitioner, thus, is that the service, which the petitioner had rendered with the State of Haryana has not been taken into any consideration for grant of pension or pensionary benefits in accordance with the rules.
Civil Writ Petition No. 16852 of 1991 -3-
Since the petitioner had served the State for fairly long period, his service is required to be recognized for grant of benefits whatever due. The petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit of the services that he had rendered in the State of Haryana. Whether pension would be payable or not would be an issue which should be considered by the respondents.
The petitioner, if so advised, may file representation giving details of his service rendered with the State of Haryana and the nature of service so rendered. The same representation shall be considered and appropriate order be passed in accordance with law. If any pension is payable to the petitioner under the rules, the same shall be released within a period of three months from the date of receipt of representation. If any other pensionary benefit is due to the petitioner, the same should also be considered and released to the petitioner within this period. If any benefit claimed by the petitioner in his representation is to be denied, the petitioner shall be informed in writing. The petitioner would be entitled to take any appropriate action against any adverse order so passed.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
September 14, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE