Baljit Kaur vs State Of Punjab & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 16527 P&H

                                                        Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125497




                                                                 2023:PHHC:125497




202 (2 cases)
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH


1.                                                   CWP-16555-2010 (O&M)

Baljit Kaur
                                                                    . . . . Petitioner

                                        Vs.
State of Punjab and others
                                                                . . . . Respondents
                                        ****

2. CWP-22247-2020 (O&M)

Baljit Kaur . . . . Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab and others . . . . Respondents **** Date of Decision: 22.09.2023 **** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ****

Present None for the petitioner in CWP-16555-2010.

Mr. Sunny Singla, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-22247-2020.

Mr. Vishnav Gandhi, DAG, Punjab.

**** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) I.CWP-16555-2010

1. Counsel for the petitioner although appearing in the other connected

petition has refused to argue in the present case no.CWP-16555-2010

stating that he has not been given instructions to argue the same.

However, as the petitioner is same in both the cases, the present cases

are being decided together on merits.

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125497

CWP-16555-2010 (O&M) and other connected case 2023:PHHC:125497

2. Petitioner by way of this petition claims seniority from 2001 when the

other persons were appointed. However, from the reply it has come up

on record that the petitioner was appointed as a Trained Dai on

17.06.2005 in compliance of the orders passed by this Court in

CWP-13142-2002 decided on 22.05.2004 whereby one post of Dai was

revived w.e.f. 26.05.2005, and in compliance thereof, the petitioner

who had preferred the said writ petition, was appointed on the said post

whereafter the Court closed the proceedings stating that nothing further

remains to be adjudicated.

3. Keeping in view thereto, the petitioner had joined on the said post on

04.08.2005. Her case, therefore, is different from those who were

appointed in 2001 as per Rule 10 of the Punjab Ayurvedic Department

(Technical Class-III) Service Rules, 1963. The seniority inter se of

members of service has to be determined by the dates of their

continuous appointments in service. Persons appointed as a result of

earlier selection shall be senior to those appointed as a result of

subsequent selection. Since the petitioner was selected and appointed in

the year 2005 while the other persons were appointed in 2001, her claim

for seniority from 2001 does not arise as there was no post available in

2001 for appointing her.

4. In view thereof, claim of the petitioner is misconceived.

5. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

6. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.

II. CWP-22247-2020

7. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition after she had retired and

attained superannuation in February, 2020. The peititoner claims that

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125497

CWP-16555-2010 (O&M) and other connected case 2023:PHHC:125497

she should be considered as being appointed prior to 01.01.2004, and

therefore she claims that she should be granted pension and other

pensionary benefits.

8. Learned counsel also relies on judgments passed by this Court in

CWP-20501-2008 in Parveen Kumar and another vs. State of Punjab

and others, decided on 12.05.2009, and LPA-108-2012 in State of

Punjab and another vs. Rupinder Pal and others, decided on

08.11.2012, wherein it was held that merely because the appointments

have been put on hold relating to selections which were made in the

year 2001, the persons appointed even after 2004 would be entitled to

the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme.

9. It is stated by counsel that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated

17.06.2005 and the said appointment was with reference to selections

conducted in the year 1996, wherein the result was declared on

16.08.1998.

10. It is the case of the petitioner that she preferred writ petition

no.CWP-6595-2001 wherein respondents stated that the Subordinate

Services Selection Board has made recommendations for appointment

of the petitioner has Trained Dai whereupon the writ petition was

disposed of. Interviews were conducted in the year 2002 but the

appointment orders were not issued and she thereafter filed a writ

petition no.CWP-13142-2002 which was disposed of on 22.05.2004 by

this Court on the basis of the statement made by the respondents that

the petitioner's case will be considered in one of the cabinet meetings to

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125497

CWP-16555-2010 (O&M) and other connected case 2023:PHHC:125497

be held shortly. Contempt petition was filed thereafter and she was

issued appointment letter on 17.06.2005 whereafter she joined the post.

11. Thus, learned counsel submits that the appointment has to be referred

back from the time when the selection process was initiated and the

petitioner was finally recommended for appointment i.e. in the year

2001.

12. Learned counsel submits that accordingly the petitioner was entitled to

the Old Pension Scheme, keeping in view the facts as stated by her.

13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that

in fact the petitioner was appointed on 17.06.2005 after the post was

created in her favour by the cabinet decision, and she joined the

services of the department which has come on record from the

connected writ petition on 04.08.2005.

14. The appointment letter dated 17.06.2005 specifically mentions that her

appointment will be subject to the Government notification dated

02.03.2004 with respect to Contributory Pension Scheme. The

petitioner did not challenge the said aspect before this Court. After she

has retired, she cannot turn around and claim that she is entitled for the

Old Pension Scheme. The Writ Petition is highly belated and suffers

from gross laches.

15. I have considered the submissions.

16. This Court has noticed while deciding the aforesaid writ petition that

the petitioner was given appointment against a post which was created

in the year 2005 and therefore she cannot be said to be an appointee

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125497

CWP-16555-2010 (O&M) and other connected case 2023:PHHC:125497

against the post which was available prior to the coming into force of

the New Pension Scheme i.e. prior to 01.01.2004.

17. In the circumstances, granting her Old Pension Scheme would be a

travesty of justice, more so as she had not claimed Old Pension Scheme

even after she was appointed vide order dated 17.06.2005. The said

order of appointment is not a subject matter of challenge by the

petitioner nor its conditions have been challenged.

18. Writ Petition has been filed after the petitioner has attained

superannuation in the year 2020.

19. Considering all the aspects, this Court does not find any reasons to

grant relief as claimed for.

20. Accordingly, Writ Petition stands dismissed.

21. All pending applications also stand disposed of.

                                                  (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)
                                                           JUDGE
September 22, 2023
Mohit goyal

         1. Whether speaking/reasoned?                   Yes/No
         2. Whether reportable?                          Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125497

5 of 5