Ranjit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1897 P&H

CWP-13480-2020                                                           -1-
227
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                  AT CHANDIGARH
                                        ****

CWP-13480-2020 Date of Decision: 22.03.2022

Ranjit Singh ..... Petitioner Versus

State of Punjab and others

..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present: Mr. Chandeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Kannan Malik, AAG, Punjab.

*****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

The present petition has been filed for the grant of retiral

benefits to the petitioner which have been denied to him by the respondents,

vide speaking order dated 22.01.2019 (Annexure P-19).

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in the present

case, the petitioner was initially appointed as a Safai Sewak with respondent

No.3-School in the year 1998 and he continued working on the said post till

07.11.2005, when his services were regularized, and thereafter he retired on

31.03.2017. Learned counsel further argues that though in the present

petition, the only grievance raised on behalf of the petitioner is that his

pensionary benefits were released after a delay, which will entitle him for

the benefit of interest on the said delayed release of pensionary benefits, but

keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, even the grant of

pensionary benefits under the new Pension Scheme by the respondents is

1 of 3

arbitrary, for the reason that the petitioner was working with the respondent

No.3-School since 1998, and though his services were regularized in the

year 2005, which is after commencement of new Contributory Provident

Fund Scheme, but in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this

Court passed in CWP-2371-2010 titled as "Harbans Lal Vs. State of

Punjab and others", decided on 31.08.2010, the old Pension Scheme is to

be made applicable upon him for computing his pensionary benefits.

Learned State counsel submits that as the claim raised on behalf

of the petitioner in the present petition is only with regard to the grant of

interest on the delayed release of pensionary benefits, and the prayer with

regard to applicability of the old Pension Scheme has been raised by learned

counsel for the petitioner today only during the arguments, there are no

pleading to the effect that whether the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of

the old Pension Scheme or not.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the record with their able assistance.

In paragraph No.3 of the reply filed on behalf of the

respondents, they have themselves admitted that the petitioner was

appointed on 12.10.1998 as a part-time Sweeper and his services were

regularized on 07.11.2005. That being so, it cannot be said that the

petitioner was not in service on 01.01.2004, on which date, the new Pension

Scheme came into being. The question of law on this aspect has already

attained finality in the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court

in Harbans Lal's case (supra), wherein it has been held that where an

employee was already working on a temporary basis or an ad-hoc basis as

on 01.01.2004 and though his services were regularized after 01.01.2004,

2 of 3

i.e. after the commencement of the new Contributory Provident Fund, still

the said employee will be governed by the old Pension Scheme only. That

being so, the case of the present petitioner is squarely covered by the

aforementioned judgment for the grant of pensionary benefits under the old

Pension Scheme.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case,

though the above said prayer has been raised only during the arguments by

learned counsel for the petitioner but as the same is covered by the settled

principle of law laid down in Harbans Lal's case (supra) and the facts

needed to adjudicate the said prayer are already on record and are conceded

as well by the respondents in their reply, hence in view of the reply filed on

behalf of the respondents, they are directed to re-consider the claim of the

petitioner for the grant of pensionary benefits under the old Pension Scheme

by applying the settled principle of law laid down in Harbans Lal's case

(supra) and an appropriate speaking order be passed within a period of two

months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Further, the benefit of

interest on the delayed payments, for which the petitioner is entitled for

under the settled principle of law, be also considered while passing the

speaking order, and the benefit for which the petitioner is found entitled for

be released in his favour within a period of four weeks thereafter.

Petition is allowed in above terms.

22.03.2022                               (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
Apurva                                           JUDGE


             1. Whether speaking/reasoned :           Yes

             2. Whether reportable             :      Yes
                                3 of 3