Punjab-Haryana High Court
Om Parkash vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 22 October, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138355
204 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-24157
24157-2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 22
22-10-2024
OM PARKASH ........Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ........Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG Punjab.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)
CM-16300
16300 of 2016
This is an application for impleadment of Punjab State
Tubewell Corporation
Corporation Ltd. (now Punjab Water Resources Management and
Development Nigam) as respondent No.5 in the present petition.
Keeping in view of the contents mentioned in the application,
the same is allowed.
Registry is directed to implead Punjab State Tubewell
Corporation Ltd. (now Punjab Water Resources Management and
Development Nigam) as respondent No.5 by making necessary corrections
in the memo of parties.
CWP-24157
24157-2014
In the present petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that the
petitioner was initially working with the Punjab State Tubewell Corporation
Ltd. on which post he was appointed in February, 1980. While working in
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138355
CWP-24157-2014 (O&M) -2-
the said department, the petitioner applied and competed for the post of S.S
Master in pursuance to an advertisement issued in the year 1996. On
10.04.1997, the Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Ltd. issued "No
Objection Certificate" to the petitioner and he submitted the same alongwith
a technical resignation in the new Department and the petitioner joined the
post of S.S Master against which he was selected. The petitioner continued
working on the said post and ultimately retired from service on attaining the
age of superannuation on 31.03.2012.
The grievance of the petitioner is that while calculating the
pensionary benefits of the petitioner, only the service which the petitioner
has rendered in the department of Education starting from July 1997 has
been taken into account and the service which the petitioner has rendered
with the Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Ltd. starting from 24.02.1980 to
15.12.1998 has not been taken into account while computing the qualifying
service for the payment of pensionary benefits which is causing prejudice to
the petitioner.
Upon notice of motion the respondents have filed the reply
wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner was selected afresh in the
Department of Education hence, the service rendered by the petitioner in the
Education Department can only be taken into account for determining the
qualifying service and the service which the petitioner has rendered with the
Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Ltd. came to end when the petitioner
submitted the resignation hence, the services rendered by the petitioner in
the Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Ltd. cannot be taken into account for
any purposes.
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138355
CWP-24157-2014 (O&M) -3-
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the records of the present case with their able assistance.
It is an admitted fact that while working in the Punjab State
Tubewell Corporation Ltd., the petitioner applied for the post of S.S Master
through proper channel. The petitioner competed for the post and got
selected after which, the Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Ltd. granted the
petitioner the "No Objection Certificate" to join the new selected post and
after submitting a technical resignation along with the "No Objection
Certificate", the petitioner joined the post of S.S Master in the new
department.
Now, the question which arises is whether, keeping in view the
Punjab Civil Services Rules, the benefits of service rendered by the
petitioner with the Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Ltd., which is also a
State-owned corporation, can be taken into account for computing the
qualifying service while calculating the pensionary benefits of the petitioner.
For better understanding, the relevant Rule 3.17(A)(1)(v) of the
Punjab Civil Services Rules V.II, is reproduced as under:-
"3.17-A(1) Subject to the provision of the Rule 4.23 and other rule
and except in the cases mentioned below, all service rendered on
establishment, interrupted or continuous, shall count as qualifying
service -
(1) Service rendered establishment in work-charged.
(ii) Service paid form contingencies.
Provided that after the Ist January, 1973 half of the service
paid form contingencies will be allowed to court towards pension at
the time of absorption in regular employment subject to the
following conditions:-
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138355
CWP-24157-2014 (O&M) -4-
(a) Service paid form contingencies should have been in a job
involving whole-time employment (and not part-time or for a portion
of the day).
(b) Service paid from contingencies should have in a job for
which regular post could have been sanctioned e.g. malis,
chowkidars, khalasis, etc.
(c) The service should have been one for which the payment is
made either on monthly or daily rates computed and paid on a
monthly basis and which though not analogous to the regular scale
of pay should bear some relation in the matter of pay to those being
paid for similar jobs being perform by staff in regular establishment.
(d) The service paid form contingencies should have been
continuous and followed by absorption in regular employment
without a break
(iii) Casual or daily rated service
(iv) Suspension adjusting as a specific penalty Note -In case
where an officer dies or is permitted to retire while under suspension
will not be treated as an interruption.
(v) Service preceding resignation except where such
resignation is allowed to be withdrawn in public interest by the
appointing authority as provided in the relevant rules or where such
resignation has been submitted to take up, with proper permission,
another appointment whether temporary or permanent under the
Government where service qualifies for pension.
(vi) Joining time for which no allowances are admissible
under rules 9.1 and 9.15 of C.S.R., Volume I, Part I.
(viii) If any unauthorized leave of absence occurs in continuation of
authorised leave of absence and if the post ofthe absentee has been
substantively filled up, the past service in a grant-in-aid school.
(xi) Removal form public service for misconduct, insolvency,
inefficiency not due to age, or failure to pass an examination will
entail forfeiture of past service.
(2) An interruption in the service of a Government employee
caused by willful absence form duty or unathorised absence without
leave, shall entail forfeiture of the past service.
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138355
CWP-24157-2014 (O&M) -5-
(3) Willful abstinence form performing duties by a
Government employee by resort to pen down strike shall be deemed
to be willful absence form duty and shall forfeiture of the past
service; Note. In the case of a Central Government employee who is
permanently transferred to the Punjab Government and become
subject to these rules, the pensionary benefits admissible for service
under Central Government would be that admissible under the
Government of India rules and the liability for such benefit shall be
allocated in accordance with the prevalent orders. "
Keeping in view the said Rule, the service rendered by the
petitioner with the Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Ltd., has to be treated
as a qualifying service for computing the pensionary benefits.
Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to show
any Rule to support their arguments that the said service is to be excluded
from the zone of qualifying service.
The only argument which has been raised by the learned
counsel for the respondent is that the petitioner had submitted a resignation
from the Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Ltd. hence, the service
rendered by the petitioner in the said department cannot be taken into
account while computing the qualifying service.
It may be noticed that "No Objection Certificate" was given by
the Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Ltd. to the petitioner to join the new
post as S.S Master in the Education Department hence, the said resignation
has to be treated as a technical resignation, which cannot create an embargo
so as to wash out the service rendered by the petitioner in the Punjab State
Tubewell Corporation Ltd. A technical resignation does not take away the
right of an employee to count the service rendered in the previous
department towards a qualifying service upon retirement.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138355
CWP-24157-2014 (O&M) -6-
Even otherwise, the claim of the petitioner is covered keeping
in the judgment of this Court in CWP NO.14148 of 2011 titled "Satinder
Pal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and ors.", decided on 02.05.2013 wherein
Instructions dated 14.05.1986 issued by the Punjab Government were
referred to, along with Rule 3.17-A(1)(v) Vol.II and Rule 7.5(1) ad (2),
Vol.1 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules and the benefit of past service in
another organisation was ordered to be taken into account for the purpose of
granting the retiral benefits.
Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to rebut
the same.
Keeping in view of above, the claim of the petitioner for taking
into consideration the service rendered by him in the Punjab State Tubewell
Corporation Ltd. as a qualifying service for computing his pensionary
benefits is allowed.
The respondents are directed to re-calculate the entitlement of
the pensionary benefits of the petitioner and grant him the benefits of revised
pensionary benefits along with arrears.
Let this order be complied with within a period of 8 weeks from
the receipt of copy of this order.
Present petition is allowed.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
22-10-2024 JUDGE
Sapna Goyal
NOTE: Whether speaking: YES/NO
Whether reportable: YES/NO
6 of 6
