Balbir Kaur vs The Punjabi University

Jasbir Singh, J.—Petitioner-Balbir Kaur was taken in service as a daily wage Clerk by the respondent-University on 5.5.1993. Thereafter she was made ad hoc employee on fixed pay of Rs. 2000/- per month on 10.1.1994. She was appointed as regular Library Restorer on 28.7.2001. She retired on superannuation on 30.11.2006. She was re-appointed for 2 years in the fixed pay of Rs. 8755/- per month on 1.12.2006. By calculating her entire service, she filed an application for grant of pension, which was rejected on 5.2.2009 (P-4), stating that period rendered by her on daily wage basis and contract/ad hoc basis, cannot be counted towards qualifying period to get pension. Her legal notice was also rejected on the above mentioned ground vide order dated 9.6.2010. Hence, this writ petition.

Heard counsel for the parties.

As per the provisions of Punjabi University Calendar, Vol. I, Chapter IV, Paras No. 2 and 3, there exists a Scheme to provide pension to regular employees of the respondent-University. Paras No. 2 and 3 reads thus:--

"2. All whole time paid employee who were beneficiaries under the existing scheme of CPF (Contributory Provident Fund) except those appointed on contract basis, who on attaining the age of retirement indicated in statute 38, retire on or after 1.4.1990, shall be entitled to the benefit of Pension Scheme including Pre mature Retirement Pension, Commuted Pension etc. and Family Pension to eligible persons in case of death of employee on or after 1.4.1990, unless they specifically opt out in writing to continue under me CPF Scheme.

The employees of the categories mentioned at 2 above, who jointed the University on or after the date of issue of the Notification of the Statutes, will be governed by the Pension Scheme only. Provided that such University employee who shall not be completing 10 years service (5 years in the case of University teachers) including permissible previous service, if any, at the time of superannuation shall be allowed to opt for CPF."

It is petitioner''s case that she never opted out to continue with the Contributory Pension Scheme. It is an admitted fact that at the time of her superannuation, she was given the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund.

In the reply filed, it is stated that to get benefit of pension, 10 years qualifying service is needed. It is further stated that period rendered by the petitioner before her-regularization in service on ad hoc/daily wage basis, cannot be counted towards qualifying period.

To claim relief, reliance was placed upon judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kesar Chand Vs. State of Punjab and Others, .. Further reliance has been placed upon judgment in the case of ''Rai Singh and mother v. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra'' (P-7) decided on 18.8.2008.

We have gone through the judgments referred to above. By placing reliance upon Kesar Chand''s judgment, in the case of Rai Singh (supra), a Division Bench of this Court gave a categoric finding that to be qualified to get pension, after regularization in service, period spent on daily wage basis can be counted. Under the similar circumstances, it was observed as under:--

"2. Case of me petitioners is that they were appointed as daily wagers between 22.1.1994 to 16.12.1996. Nomenclature of their appointment was changed to Security men on ''contract basis''. They continued to work in that capacity till their services were regularized as per policy of the Haryana Government dated 1.10.2003, Annexure P.1. Under the impugned provision, an employee who completes 10 years of qualifying service, is entitled to pension. The period spent on contract basis is not counted as qualifying service, though period spent on ad hoc or work charge basis is counted for pension.

Stand of the respondent-University is that vide order dated 13.9.2007, Annexure P.7, claim for the petitioners was considered and rejected under the rules. It has been further submitted that ad hoc employees were entitled to count their service as they are paid regular pay but contractual or daily wagers are not paid regular pay and therefore, their services could not be counted for the purpose of pension.

Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kesar Chand Vs. State of Punjab and Others, , wherein validity of Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II was considered, which provided, for temporary or officiating service followed by regularization to be counted as qualifying service but excluded period of service in work charge establishment. It was held that if temporary or officiating service was to be counted towards qualifying service, it was illogical that period of service in a work charge establishment was not counted.

As held in Kesar Chand (supra), pension is not a bounty and is for the service rendered. It is a social welfare measure to meet hardship in the old age. The employees can certainly be classified on rational basis for the purpose of grant or denial of pension. A cut off date can also be fixed unless the same is arbitrary or discriminatory. In absence of valid classification, discriminatory treatment is not permissible.

Once the employees have been regularised and are held entitled to pension by counting ad hoc service, exclusion of service "on contract basis" will be discriminatory. Appointment on contract basis is a type of ad hoc service. Mere fact that nominal breaks are given or lesser pay is given or increments are not given, is no ground to treat the said service differently. Beneficial provision for pension having been extended to ad hoc employees, denial of the said benefit to employees working on contract basis, who also stand on same footing as employees appointed on ad hoc basis cannot be held to be having any rational basis. Judgment of this Court in Kesar Chand (supra) is fully applicable."

It was specifically observed that. Pension Scheme is a social welfare measure to meet hardships in the old age. It has to be interpreted in a liberal manner. Some amount has been paid to the petitioner under Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. Her right to get pension cannot be defeated. It was further observed that once an employee has been regularized, he is entitled to count daily wage/ad hoc service towards qualifying period.

In the present case, it is not in dispute that after rendering service on daily wage/ad hoc basis, service of the petitioner was regularized on 28.7.2001, wherefrom she retired on 30.11.2006. Even thereafter, she was re-employed in service for a period of 2 years. After counting service rendered by her towards daily wage/ad hoc service, she has completed minimum qualifying period of 10 years for getting pension.

Under the circumstance, we allow this writ petition as per Scheme. Let Pensionary Benefits be granted to the petitioner. Needful shall be done within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to get simple interest @ 8% per annum till such time payment is not made.

To settle equities between the parties, it is directed that the amount received by the petitioner towards Contributory Provident Fund shall be returned by her to the authorities within one month with simple interest @ 8% per annum. If she fails to do so, this writ petition will be deemed to have been dismissed. The University shall calculate the amount and furnished the detail to the petitioner within 15 days. She thereafter, will deposit the same within 3 weeks.