Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Others vs Attar Singh (Now Deceased) Through His ... on 25 April, 2024
LPA-1128-2021 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:056762-DB
Sr. No.208
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA-1128-2021 (O&M)
Date of decision:25.04.2024
State of Haryana and others ...Appellants
Vs.
Attar Singh (now deceased) through his LRs ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present: Mr. Deepak Balyan, Additional A.G., Haryana.
For the appellants.
Mr. Rajender Singh Malik, Advocate,
For respondent No.1.
****
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)
Consideration in the present appeal is to the judgment dated
04.02.2020 passed in CWP No.18497 of 2016 which was allowed, and to the
order dated 19.01.2021 passed in CM Application No.407 of 2021, which
sought modification of order dated 04.02.2020, was dismissed.
2. Learned Single Judge has granted the benefit of the second ACP
after quashing the order dated 10.08.2016 by counting the previous service
rendered in Government aided institution from 01.08.1979 to 31.03.1986 and
thus issued necessary directions to grant the same.
3. Judgment is primarily based upon the precedence regarding the
said issue of a coordinate Bench in 'Uma Devi and others Vs. State of
Haryana and others', 2015 (3) SCT 553.
4. A perusal of the same would go on to show that learned Single
Judge therein had placed reliance upon the judgment passed by another Single
Judge in Civil Writ Petition No.6586 of 2008 in Shyam Kumar Vs. State of
LPA-1128-2021 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:056762-DB
Haryana and others decided on 24.07.2009 which order was upheld by the
Coordinate Bench in LPA No.420 of 2010.
5. Matter was taken up by the State before the Apex Court vide SLP
(C) No.18709 of 2010 which was dismissed on 21.04.2011. A perusal of the
said order of the coordinate Bench dated 05.04.2010 would go on to show that
it was passed in terms of LPA No.162 of 2010 decided on 08.02.2010 titled
'The State of Haryana and others Vs. Vijay Singh'. Order dated 08.02.2010
reads as under:-
"1. This appeal has been preferred against judgment of
learned Single Judge, directing counting of service rendered by
the respondent/writ petitioner in an aided school, prior to his
joining Government School, for retiral benefits.
2. The respondent served from 1972 to 1989 in an
aided school and was, thereafter, selected in a Government
school and he retired from service on 31.03.2006. His service
with the aided school prior to joining Government service was not
counted, against which he filed writ petition, which was opposed
by the State, relying on Rules 3.12 and 3.16 of the Civil Services
Rules, Vol.-II.
3. Learned Single Judge relying upon Division Bench
judgment of Rajasthan High Court in Union of India and others
V. Jawahar Lal Sharma 2003 (3) RSJ 672 and Division Bench
judgments of this Court in Harnandan Singh V. State of Punjab
and others 2007(2) RSJ 437 and Charan Singh v. State of
Punjab and others 2006(6) SLR 624 and also after referring to
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chander Sain v. State
of Haryana and others AIR 1994 SC 972, allowed the claim of
the petitioner.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants
and perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants states that only
distinction in the judgments relied upon by learned Single Judge
and the present case is that while in those cases, the institutions
were taken over by the State while in the present case, the
petitioner himself left the earlier service and joined the State
service and hence, past service in an aided school cannot be
counted for retiral benefits.
6. We are unable to accept the submission in view of
judgments referred to above. Past service in an aided institution
has to be counted for pension, which principle will also apply
even when the employee himself leaves the earlier service and
joins the Government service. Admittedly, service in aided
institution is pensionable and if employee continues in such
LPA-1128-2021 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:056762-DB
institution, he gets benefit of such service. Liability is
substantially born by the State. There is not ground to deny the
said benefit when the employer switches over the Government
service.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed."
6. It is not disputed that the SLP bearing No. 13909 of 2010 'State
of Haryana and another Vs. Vijay Singh and another' was dismissed on
12.05.2010. LPA No.1487-2019 preferred by the State in Uma Devi's case
was dismissed on 27.01.2020 by a Coordinate Bench by noting the fact that
Shyam Kumar's case has also been discussed by the Apex Court on
21.04.2011 and that too orders have already been implemented in compliance
of the judgments, resultantly, the appeal was dismissed.
7. In such circumstances, counsel for the State cannot be in any
position to argue to the contrary once the matter has repeatedly been taken to
the Apex Court but without any success.
8. For the reasons given above, there is no merit in the present
appeal. Dismissed.
9. Pending application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
April 25, 2024 JUDGE
vandana
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No
