Punjab-Haryana High Court
Saroj Rani vs State Of Punjab And Another on 6 September, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117162
CWP-16130-2022 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
225 CWP-16130-2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision :06.09.2024
Saroj Rani ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate with
Mr. Prabhsher Singh Walia, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amarpreet Singh Bains, AAG, Punjab
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
In the present petition, grievance being raised by the petitioner
is that though she was entitled to be considered under the Old Pension
Scheme for the release of her pensionary benefits, which was applicable
prior to 01.01.2004 but the petitioner has not been considered under the said
Old Pension Scheme so as to grant her the benefit of said scheme despite
the fact that the claim of the petitioner is covered by the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in CWP-2371-2020, titled as, Harbans Lal vs.
State of Punjab and others decided on 31.08.2010, which has already been
upheld up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed reply
wherein, the only argument raised by the respondents so as to deny the
benefit of Old Pension Scheme to the petitioner is that the petitioner's
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117162
CWP-16130-2022 (O&M) -2-
services were regularized after 01.01.2004 hence, the petitioner is not
entitled for the grant of benefit of Old Pension Scheme.
Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner has already
accepted the benefit under the New pension Scheme after her retirement
hence, now she cannot raise a claim so as to be considered under Old
Pension Scheme.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
As per the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
Harbans Lal (supra), any employee, who was working with the respondent-
State prior to 01.01.2004 will be governed under the Old Pension Scheme
even if, his/her services were regularized after 01.01.2004.
In the present case, it has been conceded by the respondents
that the petitioner was working with the respondents since 1996 however,
services were regularized later on. Merely that the services of the petitioner
have been regularized after 01.01.2004, the petitioner cannot be treated to be
paid her pensionary benefits under the New Pension Scheme especially
when her case is covered by the judgment in Harbans Lal (supra).
Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to
point out any differentiating fact in the case of the petitioner as compared to
the case of Harbans lal (supra) wherein, benefit of Old Pension Scheme
was granted to an employee, who was in service prior to 01.01.2004 and his
services were regularized after the said date. Relevant paragraphs of the
judgment are as under:-
10. The consistent view of the judgment is that work charge
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117162
CWP-16130-2022 (O&M) -3-
service rendered before regularization, is liable to be counted as
qualifying service for the purpose of pension. A Division Bench of
this Court was seized of a case in which vires of Rule 3.17 A was
challenged whereby half of the service paid out of contingency fund
was to be counted as qualifying service. This rule has been struck
down in a judgment of this Court in case of Joginder Singh v. State
of Haryana , 1998 Vol.1, SCT 795. Once the entire service paid out
of contingency, is liable to be counted for the purpose of qualifying
service, a causal/daily rated service is also bound to be counted as
qualifying service.
11. xxx xxx xxx xxx
12. xxx xxx xxx xxx
13. xxx xxx xxx xxx
14. xxx xxx xxx xxx
15. xxx xxx xxx xxx
16. From the above discussion, we have come to the conclusion
that the entire daily wage service of the petitioner from 1988 till the
date of his regularization is to be counted as qualifying service for
the purpose of pension. He will be deemed to be in govt. service
prior to 1.1.2004. 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
Annexure P-2 amending the Punjab Civil Services Rules, cannot be
further amended by issuing clarification/instructions dated
30.5.2008 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner will continue to be
governed by the GPF Scheme and is held entitled to receive
pensionary benefits as applicable to the employees recruited in the
Punjab Govt. Services prior to 1.1.2004.
17. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Accordingly
respondents are directed to treat the whole period of work charge
service as qualified service for pension because accordingly to
clarification issued on 30.5.2008 (Annexure P-3), the new defined
Contributory Pension Scheme would be applicable to all those
employees who have been working prior to 1.1.2004 but have been
regularized thereafter. Let his pension and arrears be calculated and
paid to him expeditiously, preferably within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of copy of this order."
Keeping in view the above, the respondents are directed to
recalculate the pensionary benefits of the petitioner under the Old pension
Scheme by giving her all the benefits of service from the date of her initial
appointment till the date of her retirement so as to compute her entitlement.
The petitioner will also be entitled for the benefit of arrears of pension under
the Old Pension Scheme from the date the petitioner retired from service up
to the date the said benefits are released. The amount which the petitioner
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117162
CWP-16130-2022 (O&M) -4-
has been paid under the New Pension Scheme after her retirement will be
adjusted while releasing the arrears for which the petitioner becomes entitled
under the Old Pension Scheme.
Further, the judgment in Harbans Lal (supra) was available
with the respondent-State for implementation when the petitioner retired
from service but without any valid justification, the said judgment has not
been made applicable upon the petitioner rather she was forced to litigate for
her entitled benefits hence, keeping in view the judgment of the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in J.S. Cheema Vs. State of Haryana, 2014(13) RCR
(Civil) 355, wherein, it has been held that where an amount belonging to an
employee, has been retained and used by the respondents, upon the release
of the said amount, on a later date, the interest has to be given, the petitioner
is also held entitled for the grant of interest @ 6% per annum on the arrears
admissible to the petitioner from the date the same became due till the actual
payment of the same. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is as under: -
"The jurisprudential basis for grant of interest
is the fact that one person's money has been
used by somebody else. It is in that sense rent
for the usage of money. If the user is
compounded by any negligence on the part of
the person with whom the money is lying it may
result in higher rate because then it can also
include the component of damages (in the form
of interest). In the circumstances, even if there
is no negligence on the part of the State it
cannot be denied that money which rightly
belonged to the petitioner was in the custody of
the State and was being used by it."
Let the present order be complied with within a period of 08
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117162
CWP-16130-2022 (O&M) -5-
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Present petition is allowed in above terms.
Civil miscellaneous application pending, if any, is also disposed
of.
September 06, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
