Punjab-Haryana High Court
Charanjit Singh And Ors vs Vice Chancellor Guru Nanak Dev ... on 19 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052877
WP-25857-2016 (O&M)
C 2024:PHHC:052877
CWP-17511-2018(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
225-2 cases
WP-25857-2016 (O&M)
C
Date of decision: 19.04.2024
Charanjit Singh and others
...Petitioners
Versus
Vice Chancellor Guru Nanak Dev University Amritsar and another
....Respondents
CWP-17511-2018 (O&M)
Pawan Kumar
....Petitioner
Versus
The Vice Chancellor Guru Nanak Dev University Amritsar and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
* ****
Present : Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate for petitioner No.2-Pawan Kumar.
Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
r. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate
M
for respondent Nos.3 to 6 in CWP-25857-2016.
r. Tejinderbir Singh, Advocate
M
for the respondents in CWP-17511-2018.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J. (ORAL)
1. These cases involve similar issues and therefore, arebeingdisposed
of together by this common judgment. For brevity, facts are being taken from
CWP-25857-2016.
2. Theprayerinthepresentpetitionsisforquashingtheimpugnedorder
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052877
WP-25857-2016 (O&M)
C 2024:PHHC:052877
CWP-17511-2018(O&M) -2-
dated29.11.2016videwhichtheclaimofthepetitionersforgrantofOldPension
Scheme and other benefits by counting the adhoc service has been declined and
furtherforquashingtheimpugnedshowcausenoticedated04.01.2017,Annexure
P-14 passed by respondent No.1.
3. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners were initially recruited
asDailyWagersintheyears1984and1985andthenonadhocbasisin1991and
1992.Thereafter,theywereputonprobationascompositorsanddistributorasalso
their services were regularized after 01.01.2004. However, a speaking order was
passed on 29.11.2016, pursuant to judgment in CWP-13988-2016, decided on
27.07.2016, vide which their past services were not taken into consideration for
qualifyingthepurposeofOldPensionScheme.Further,ashowcausenoticedated
04.01.2017 was issued to de-regularize their services. The issue is no longer res
integra,havingbeendecidedbytheDivisionBenchofthisCourtinHarbansLal
vs.StateofPunjabandothers,CWP-2371-2010,decidedon31.08.2010,against
which,theSLPaswellastheReviewApplication,weredismissedon30.07.2012
and 04.11.2015 respectively. Following the above and considering Rule 3.17 of
Punjab Civil Services Rules as well, this Court allowed CWP-14728-2018,
BabunjiBhagatvs.StateofPunjabandothers,on01.02.2023,acaseofaClass
IVemployee,whoworkedfromMay,1995to2001asDailyWageCookbutwas
given a fresh appointment on 15.10.2010, thus the New Defined Contributory
Pension Fund Scheme was made applicable, held him to be governed under the
Old Pension Rules, being in service prior to 01.01.2004. Likewise, in Jeewan
Latavs.StateofPunjabandothers,CWP-10238-2017,decidedon10.05.2019,
a part time sweeper was granted the benefit as being claimed by the petitioners
herein,relevant paras whereof read thus:
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052877
WP-25857-2016 (O&M)
C 2024:PHHC:052877
CWP-17511-2018(O&M) -3-
"The question of law as to whether an employee, whose
services were regularised after 01-01-2004, will be governed
bytheNewPensionSchemeortheOldPensionSchemeiswell
settled and has already attained finality up to the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India. The Division Bench of this Court
while deciding CWP No. 2371of2010titledasHarbansLal
Vrs. StateofPunjab&Ors.decidedon31-08-2010hasheld
thatanemployeewhowasinserviceason01-01-2004though
his services might have beenregularisedafterthesaiddate,is
to be governed under the Old Pension Scheme.The relevant
portion of the judgement is as under:-
" Fromtheabovediscussion,wehavecometothe
conclusion that the entire daily wage service of the
petitioner from 1988 tillthedateofhisregularizationis
to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of
pension. He will be deemedtobeingovt.Serviceprior
to 01.01.2004. The new Re-structured Defined
Contribution Pension Scheme (Annexure P-1) has been
introduced for the new entrants in the Punjab
Government Service w.e.f. 01.01.2004, will not be
applicable to the petitioner. The amendment made vide
AnnexureP-2amendingthePunjabCivilServiceRules,
cannot be further amended by issuing
clarification/instructions dated 30.05.2008 (Annexure
P-3) The petitioner will continue to be governedbythe
GPF Scheme and is held entitled to receive pensionary
benefits as applicable to the employees recruited in the
Punjab Govt. Services prior to 01.01.2004.
In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed.
Accordingly, respondents are directedtotreatthewhole
period of work charge service as qualified service for
pension because accordingly to clarification issued on
30.05.2008 (Annexure P-3), the new defined
ContributoryPensionSchemewouldbeapplicabletoall
those employees who have been working prior to
01.01.2004 but have beenregularizedthereafter.Lethis
pension and arrears be calculated and paid to him
expeditiously,preferablywithinaperiodofthreemonths
from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
No order as to costs."
The above saidjudgementhasalreadyattainedfinalityupto
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as the Special Leave
PetitionfiledagainstthesaidjudgementbytheStateofPunjab
has already been dismissed. Therefore, the first objection
which the respondents have taken to deny the petitioner the
benefit of pension on the ground that the petitioner will be
governed by the New Contributory Provident Funds Scheme
holds no ground and is liable to be rejected.
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052877
WP-25857-2016 (O&M)
C 2024:PHHC:052877
CWP-17511-2018(O&M) -4-
The second objection which has been taken by the
respondents is that even if the Old Pension Scheme is
applicable upon the petitioner, keeping in view provisions of
the Rule 3.17A,theservicerenderedbythepetitioneronpart
timebasiscannotbecountedasqualifyingserviceforthegrant
of pensionary benefits. The said Rule has already been
interpretedbythisCourtwhiledecidingCWPNo.626of2015
titledZileSinghVs.StateofHaryanaandotherson17.03.2015
wherein also a similar question of law arose. In the said case
also the employees working on part time basis, were seeking
thebenefitoftheparttimeservicetobetreatedasaqualifying
serviceforthegrantofpensionarybenefits.Afterrelyingupon
the judgment in Kesar Chand Vs. State of Punjab and others,
this Court while deciding CWP No. 626 of 2015, on
17.03.2015, held that once an employee has worked with the
respondents though on part time basis, and the said part time
servicehasbeentakenintoaccountforregularisationofservice
ofanemployee,thebenefitofsaidservice,cannotbedeniedto
be counted as a qualifying service for the grantofpensionary
benefits. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under:-
xx xx xx
AgainstthesaidorderLPANo.426of2016wasfiledbythe
GovernmentofHaryanaandvideorderdated18.03.2016,after
noticing theprovisionofRule3.17A,theDivisionBenchheld
thatonlyashorttermparttimeemploymentandthattoounder
a specific contingency, has to beignoredwhilecomputingthe
pensionary benefits. The Division Bench held that where an
employee has workedforalongtimeandcontinuously,which
ismorethanadecade,thesamecannotbetreatedasaparttime
engagement, and cannot be ignored while computing the
pensionary benefits. The relevant portion of the judgment of
the Division Bench is as under:-
xx xx xx
Thequestionoflawastowhether,theparttimeserviceisto
be counted for computing the pensionary benefits again came
up for consideration before this Court in CWP No. 1048 of
2016 titled as Jai Bhagwan Vrs. State of Haryana & Others,
decided on 01.03.2019. In the said case also, keepinginview
the decision of the Coordinate Bench in Zile Singh's Case
(Supra) as well the order passed in LPA No.426of2016,the
benefitoftheservicewhichanemployeehadrenderedonpart
timebasiscontinuouslyformorethan20yearswasallowedto
be computed as a qualifying service. The relevant portion of
the judgment is as under:-
"I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that once the
petitioner had rendered service on part time basis
starting from 06.08.1992 till 27.02.2012, the same is
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052877
WP-25857-2016 (O&M)
C 2024:PHHC:052877
CWP-17511-2018(O&M) -5-
liable tobecountedasaqualifyingserviceforthegrant
ofpensionarybenefits.Counselforthepetitionerfurther
contends that thoughthepetitionerwasworkingonpart
timebasis,butasheworkedforabout20years,itcannot
be said that he discharged the dutiesonparttimebasis.
Further, as the petitioner was working as Peon in a
school, it cannot be said that he was discharging the
duties part time and the same has to be considered a
regular employment for all intents and purposes.
On theotherhand,counselfortherespondentsstates
that once the appointment wasmadeonparttimebasis,
thesamecannotbeconsideredasaqualifyingservicein
view of the provisions of Section 3.17 (A) of the CSR
Vol-II, according to which, part time service cannot be
treated as a qualifying service.
Itisamatteroffactthatthepetitionerworkedonpart
time basis continuously for 20 years. A person is
engaged on part time only for a specific job and for
specifiedperiod.Itcannotbesaidthatanemployee,who
is working continuously for 20yearsasPeoninschool,
wasaparttimejob.Thesaidserviceistobetreatedasa
long term employment for all intents and purposes.
A Full Bench of this Court in Kesar Chand's case
(supra) has held that daily wage service, followed by
regularization of the services, is to be counted as a
qualifying service for the grant of pensionary benefits.
Once, the daily wage service is to be counted as a
qualifying service, it cannot be said that continuous
appointment rendered by the petitioner for 20 years
though as part time basis, is less than the daily wage
service rendered by an employee. There is no
justification given by the respondents to deny the said
benefit, except the Rule 3.17 (A). The said Rule has
already been considered in Kesar Chand's case (supra)
andithasbeenheldthatthedailywageservicefollowed
by the regular service is good enough to be treated as
qualifying service for computing the pensionary
benefits. Therefore, the service which thepetitionerhas
rendered for 20 years as a Peon from 06.08.1992 till
27.02.2012 cannot be ignored for computing the
pensionary benefits of the petitioner."
The case of the petitioner is covered by the above said
judgment.
Learned State counsel, has not been able todifferentiatethe
case of the petitioner from the judgments which have been
cited above to prove that the petitioner is not entitled for the
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052877
WP-25857-2016 (O&M)
C 2024:PHHC:052877
CWP-17511-2018(O&M) -6-
b enefits of counting her part time service as a qualifying
service after the services of the petitioner were regularized.
In view of the above, the second objection which has been
raisedbytherespondentsthattheparttimeservicerenderedby
thepetitionerfrom1984till25.10.2010cannotbecountedasa
qualifying service is liable to be rejected. As the objections
raised by the Counsel for therespondentstodenythebenefits
are contrary to the settled principle of law and have already
been rejected, petitioner is held entitled to the grant of the
pensionary benefits on total length of her service under Old
Pension Scheme.
TheWritPetitionisallowed.Therespondentsaredirectedto
treat the case of the petitioner under the Old PensionScheme
for the grant of pensionary benefits andwhileconsideringthe
caseforthegrantofpensionarybenefitstothepetitionerunder
theOldPensionScheme,theservicerenderedbythepetitioner
from1984till2010shallalsobetreatedasaqualifyingservice
for computing the pensionary benefits. Let the calculationsof
the pensionary benefits be done by the respondents within a
period of two months fromthereceiptofthecertifiedcopyof
thisorderandwhateveramountthepetitionerisfoundentitled
for after the calculations shall be released to the petitioner
within a period of next two months."
4. LearnedcounselappearingfortheUniversity,despitehisbestefforts
has been unable to controvert the factual position and draw out any distinctive
aspects in the aforementioned judgments or cite any contrary law.
5. In view of theaforesaid,thepresentwritpetitionsaredisposedofin
terms ofHarbans Lal, Jeewan LataandBabunji Bhagat(supra).
6. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected cases.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
1 9.04.2024
Hemant
hether speaking/reasoned
W : es / No
Y
Whether reportable : Yes / No
6 of 6
