Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karnail Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 13 January, 2025
2015 (O&M)
CWP-17486-201 Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003435 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
280 CWP
CWP-17486-2015 (O&M)
Date of decision: 13.01.2025
Karnail Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Brijesh Nandan,, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Satnam Preet Singh, DAG, Punjab
Punjab.
(through hybrid mode)
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer made in the present petition for counting of work-charges
charges
for the purpose of pension.
2. This Court vide order dated 19.12.2022 had adjourned the matter
sine die and to be listed after decision of LPA-1996
LPA 1996-2016 titled as Balbir Singh
(since deceased)
ed) thr. his Lrs vs. Bhakra Beas Management Board and
others,, stands decided vide judgment dated 18.09.2024, which learned State
counsel despite his best efforts, has not been able to controvert the factual
position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgment or
cite any contrary law, relevant extract whereof reads thus:
thus:-
"18.
18. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh
versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2019(4) SCT,
while considering the validity of Rule 3(8) of UP Retirement
tirement
Benefit Rules, 1961 and Regulations 370 of Civil Services
Regulation of UP which were pari materia to the Rules as in
1 of 3
2015 (O&M)
CWP-17486-201 Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003435 2
question in Kesar Singh's case (supra) affirmed its decision
in the case of Narata Singh Reliance by the State of UP on
the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaswant
Singh's (supra) was negated while holding that the question
involved in the case of Jaswant Singh was different.
19. This Court during the course of hearing was informed
that all the 19 above said decisions have attained finality and
the benefit in question has been afforded to the employees
therein by the respondent Board.
20. It is to be noted at this stage that though it is mentioned
in the 20 written statements filed on behalf of BBMB before
the writ Court that the employee had voluntarily resigned
from service, it is undeniable that their services were indeed
retrenched. In the case of Balbir Singh the Labour Court
award dated 04.09.2008 itself is testimony to the same.
Moreover, in all faimess, learned counsel for BBMB did not
deny that services of the employees were indeed retrenched
from the Beas Satluj Link project/Beas Construction
Board/Bhakra Dam Project. The question of right of such an
employee retrenched from the Boards which were
admittedly
tedly the predecessors of BBMB and the of such
employees' entitlement for counting of their work work-charge
charge
service with the predecessor Boards has been considered
and decided in their favour in the various judgments as
discussed in the foregoing paras.
21. In the given factual matrix, learned Single Judge while
deciding CWP-57-20122012 vide order dated 17.08.2016, clearly
erred in holding that the matter at hand is squarely covered
by the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Jaswant
Singh's case (supra). There is also no merit in the argument
that there has been delay on the part of employees in
approaching this Court. Leamed Single Bench while
deciding the writ petitions vide orders dated 17.08.2016,
03.02.2020 and thereafter 08.08.2023 has clearly erred while
rendering the said decisions. Keeping in view the factual
matrix as above, decisions dated 17.08.2016, 03.02.2020
and 08.08.2023 are not sustainable.
22. No other argument has been addressed.
23. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above,
all the
he appeals are allowed, impugned decisions dated
17.08.2016, 03.02.2020 and 08.08.2023 are set aside.
Consequently, writ petitions filed by appellants/writ
petitioners are allowed to the extent that respondent Board is
directed to count service of appellan
appellants
ts rendered by them
under the Government of Punjab with Bhakra Dam Project,
Beas Construction Board, Beas Satluj Link Board etc. for
calculating qualifying service towards pension. Arrears of
2 of 3
2015 (O&M)
CWP-17486-201 Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003435 3
pension as payable to the appellants be released to them
within a period of three months from receipt of certified
copy of this decision. No interest thereon is liable to be
released as the matter has been adjudicated upon and
decided now. However, in case, amount in question is not
released within three months from rereceipt
ceipt of certified copy
of this order, appellants shall be entitled to interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of order till actual
deposit of the amount."
3. In wake of the above, the present petition is disposed of in terms of
the judgment passed
assed in Balbir Singh (supra).
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
13.01.2025
ashok
Whether speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
