Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwinder Singh vs Pseb And Anr on 15 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031685
CWP No.5913 of 2017 (O&M)
1
2024:PHHC:031685
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.5913 of 2017 (O&M)
Reserved on: 05.03.2024
Pronounced on: 15.03.2024
Balwinder Singh (since deceased) through his LRs
....Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Electricity Board and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Lalit Goyal, Advocate
for Mr. Aman Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, Advocate
with Ms. Priyanka Goyal, Advocate
for respondent No.1 - PSEB.
Mr. Gautam Thapar, Advocate for respondent No.2.
NAMIT KUMAR J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 21.10.2016 (Annexure P-7) whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of gratuity for the period of service rendered by him with Punjab State Electricity Board w.e.f. 18.04.1974 to 02.08.1978, has been rejected. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought for directing the respondents to release the payment of gratuity for the abovesaid period along with interest.
2. The brief facts, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioner was working as Upper Division Clerk (U.D.C.) in Punjab State Electricity Board (now Punjab State Power Corporation 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 16-03-2024 20:13:16 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031685 CWP No.5913 of 2017 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:031685 Limited) w.e.f. 18.04.1974 to 02.08.1978. In pursuance to the advertisement issued by the Punjab Scheduled Castes Land Development and Finance Corporation, Chandigarh, the petitioner applied for the post of Accounts Assistant and was appointed vide order dated 23.10.1978. He retired from the said Corporation on 31.12.2006, on attaining the age of superannuation.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that after his retirement, he submitted representations dated 13.06.2007 and 24.06.2013 (Annexures P-4 and P-5) to the Executive Director, Punjab Scheduled Castes Land Development and Finance Corporation, Chandigarh, for release of his gratuity of 04 years service rendered in Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, followed by reminder dated 27.10.2016 and the said claim along with other claims of the petitioner have been rejected vide impugned order dated 21.10.2016 (Annexure P-7).
4. On issuance of notice of motion, separate replies have been filed by respondent No.1 - PSEB/PSPCL and respondent No.2 - Punjab Scheduled Castes Land Development and Finance Corporation, Chandigarh.
5. In the reply filed by respondent No.1 - PSEB/PSPCL, it has been averred as under:-
"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
2). a. That in reply to contents of para 2 (a) of the
petition it is submitted that the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present petition. The petitioner was appointed as UDC (Upper Divisional Clerk) in Punjab State Electricity Board (herein after PSEB) as officiating UDC in the scale of Rs. 150-8-166/10-216/230-10-300 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 16-03-2024 20:13:16 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031685 CWP No.5913 of 2017 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:031685 vide Chief Accounts Officer, PSEB, Patiala Memo no. 7399 dt. 08.04.1974 & joined on the post of UDC on 18.04.1974 A.N. He resigned on 08.11.1978 A.N. and his resignation was accepted vide Chief Auditor, Patiala 0/0 354 dt 02.07.1979. It is admitted that the experience certificate was issued to the petitioner by A.O. Field, Jalandhar on 02.08.1978, (Annexure P/1) mentioning that Sh. Balwinder Singh U.D.C s/o Sh. Hazara Singh is working as U.D.C. in P.S.E.B. Department since 18.04.1974 A.N. His work and conduct is satisfactory.
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX"
6. In the reply filed by respondent No.2 - Punjab Scheduled Castes Land Development and Finance Corporation, Chandigarh, it has been averred as under:-
"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
2. That the claim of the petitioner does not sustain after a long period of 11 years, as the petitioner retired from the service on 31.12.2006 and he is filing a writ petition in the year 2017. Moreover the delay of 11 years has not explained by the petitioner. As such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed out-rightly on this score.
3. That the petitioner after retirement remained silent and allegedly gave a representation on dated 13.06.2007 and demanded gratuity of his previous service and thereafter keep giving the reminders and never adopt the legal remedy.
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
3. That the contents of para no 3 of the writ petition are wrong and incorrect to the extent that the petitioner has joined service through proper channel. It is pertinent to mention here that the initial application vide which the petitioner applied for the post of Accounts Assistant there 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 16-03-2024 20:13:16 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031685 CWP No.5913 of 2017 (O&M) 4 2024:PHHC:031685 was no any recommendation from the PSEB (his previous employer). It is only typed by the petitioner/applicant on the Top "Through Proper Channel" but there was no any recommendation by the previous employer i.e PSEB. Moreover on the backside of the application it is handwritten that "An advance copy of the application is sent hereby and the application through proper channel will follow soon". Which clearly show that the application of the petitioner was not through proper channel. The true typed copy of the said application along with back side writing is attached herewith the Reply as Annexure R-2/1 for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. Rest of the contents of this para are correct as matter of facts and record. However it is submitted that the illegal claim of the petitioner has rightly denied by the answering respondent.
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX"
7. It is the stand of the respondents that firstly the present petition has been filed after a considerable delay of 11 years and secondly, it has been submitted that since the petitioner has resigned from the earlier service and has not applied for the post of Accounts Assistant through proper channel, therefore, no benefit of the earlier service rendered by him can be granted for the purpose of gratuity.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for gratuity for the service rendered by him with Punjab State Electricity Board from 18.04.1974 to 02.08.1978 and since the experience certificate was issued by the said authorities, therefore, even if he has resigned from the earlier service, he is entitled for the gratuity amount.
9. Per contra, learned counsel(s) for the respondents submits 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 16-03-2024 20:13:16 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031685 CWP No.5913 of 2017 (O&M) 5 2024:PHHC:031685 that since the petitioner has resigned from the earlier service and has applied for the post of Accounts Assistant directly and not through proper channel and there is no provision for grant of gratuity for the earlier service, therefore, the claim of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. They have placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in RSA No.13 of 2009, titled as "State of Haryana and others vs Dr. (Mrs.) Sudha Seth", decided on 18.09.2009, wherein it has been held that on resignation, the employee forfeits his past service for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
11. Admittedly, the petitioner was earlier working as Upper Division Clerk with Punjab State Electricity Board (now Punjab State Power Corporation Limited) and has rendered service from 18.04.1974 to 02.08.1978. Thereafter, he applied for the post of Accounts Assistant with respondent No.2 where he was appointed as such on 23.10.1978. He retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2006. He had resigned from service of Punjab State Electricity Board on 08.11.1978 and his resignation was accepted by the Chief Auditor, Patiala, vide order dated 02.07.1979. He has not applied through proper channel in respondent No.2 - Department. The Full Bench judgment of this Court in Sudha Seth's case (supra) has held that an employee on resignation forfeits his past service for the purposes of pensionary benefits as he has severed his relationship with his employer and as such cannot be made the basis of claiming pensionary benefits.
5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 16-03-2024 20:13:16 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031685 CWP No.5913 of 2017 (O&M) 6 2024:PHHC:031685
12. In view of the above, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
JUDGE
15.03.2024
yakub
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:031685
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 16-03-2024 20:13:16 :::