Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurcharan Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 8 August, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:102460
CWP No. 7096 of 2023 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
268
CWP No. 7096 of 2023 (O&M)
DECIDED ON: 8th August, 2024
Gurcharan Singh
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others
.....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG Punjab.
***
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J (ORAL)
In the present petition, the grievance being raised by the
petitioner is that the period of his services rendered from 20.5.1994 to
20.2.2002 has not been taken into account as a qualifying service for
computing the pensionary benefits.
As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner
joined the service as a cleaner in the respondent-Department on 20.5.1994.
The petitioner continued working as such when, on 22.10.1995, the services
of the petitioner were terminated without assigning any reason. The petitioner
challenged the said order before the Labour Court and vide award dated
12.9.2001 (P-1), the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service with
continuity but with 50% of the back wages. The said award was never
challenged and was implemented by the respondent.
The petitioner continued working till he attained the age of
superannuation and retired on 31.12.2020 and while computing the qualifying
service, the period of service rendered by the petitioner from 20.5.1994 to
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:102460
20.2.2002, has not been taken into account on the ground that the petitioner
remained out of service during the said period and he was given a fresh
appointment keeping in view the award of the Labour Court dated 12.9.2001.
The said action of the respondent is under challenge in the present petition.
Learned counsel for respondents argued that as the petitioner has
given an undertaking that he will not claim the arrears upon reinstatement, the
service can only be taken into account after his rejoining in pursuance to the
order of the Labour Court and his earlier service has washed up as he was
given a fresh appointment, and the petitioner was to be treated as freshly
appointed as per the award given by the Labour Court.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and has gone through
the record with their able assistance.
The award of the Labour Court by which the termination of the
petitioner was held to be bad directed the respondents that the petitioner is to
be reinstated in service with continuity along with 50% back wages. The
relevant paragraph of the judgment is as under
''During arguments, Sh. Manohar Singh, DPRO was
directed to place on record details of number of working days
during the last calander year of the workman in the instant
case. Number of working days according to the details
furnished are 243 days. Since workman had worked for more
than 240 days during the last calander year and his services
had been terminated without payment of any compensation or
holding of any enquiry, I decide this issue against the
management that services of workman have not been validly
terminated.''
A bare perusal of the above would show that the petitioner is to
be reinstated and not to be given a fresh appointment. That being so, once the
continuity of service has been given, the petitioner's service from his initial
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:102460
date of joining the department i.e. 20.5.1994 is to be taken into account to be
treated as qualifying service. Hence, the refusal of grant of the benefit of
service rendered by the petitioner from 20.5.1994 till 20.2.2002 is totally
arbitrary and illegal.
The argument of learned counsel for respondent that the
petitioner has not been granted the arrears of salary hence he cannot get the
benefit of service as well cannot be accepted, merely that the arrears are not to
be paid does not mean that the petitioner is also not to be granted continuity
of service despite the same being granted by the Labour Court. Further, the
action of the respondent in treating the petitioner as a fresh appointee in terms
of the order of Labour Court is incorrect. Once, the direction by the Labour
Court is to reinstate the petitioner with continuity, the petitioner is to be
treated in service for all intents and purposes from the date of his initial
appointment, even for the period he remained out of service.
Keeping in view the above, the action of the respondents in not
granting the petitioner the benefit of service from 20.5.1994 to 20.2.2002 as
qualify service is arbitrary and illegal, and is therefore set aside. The
respondents are directed to give the benefit of service from 20.5.1994 to
20.2.2002 as a qualifying service and thereafter recompute his pensionary
benefits. The petitioner will also be entitled for arrears of the pensionary
benefits upon re-computation including the arrears of pension.
As the action of the respondent in not granting the petitioner the
benefit of service from 20.5.1994 to 20.2.2002 is bad, the arrears for which
the petitioner will become entitled for under this order, will also carry interest
at the rate of 6% per annum from the date the payment became due till the
actual payment of the same.
The writ petition is allowed in above terms.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:102460
Let the order be complied with, within a period of eight weeks on
receipt of copy of this order.
( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI )
th
8 August, 2024 JUDGE
reema
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
4 of 4
