Jagdish Ram vs State of Punjab

Ajay Tewari, J.—By this judgment I shall decide the above mentioned two petitions. Since common questions of law and facts are involved therein, both are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience the facts are being taken from C.W.P. No. 10757 of 1999 titled as Jagdish Ram v. The State of Punjab and others. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Driver at Bhakhra Dam Project, Nangal, District Ropar on 27.09.1957. He was discharged from service on account of absence from duty vide Annexure P-1 dated 05.11.1962. He was again appointed as Driller at Bhakhra Sutlej Link Project at Sunder Nagar, A.R.H.P., Unit II on 30.06.1964. He was again discharged from service on account of reduction in strength vide Annexure P-2 dated 31.05.1980. He was again selected and appointed as Driller and he joined his duties on 19.07.1985 at Power Plant Civil Exc. Division, RSD, Shahpurkandi, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur. Thereafter, he retired from service at the age of 60 years on 31.10.1997. The claim in the petition is that by policy dated 07.05.1993, reiterated by instructions dated 01.02.1995 the petitioner was entitled for regularisation but that benefit was illegally denied to him. It is further pleaded that had the petitioner been regularised at that time he would have been entitled to pension as per his service.

In reply the entitlement of the petitioner for pension has been disputed on the ground that various policies referred to in the writ petition for regularisation do not help the petitioner since in all of them one mandatory condition was that the employee should opt for the same and at no stage the petitioner ever opted. There are other grounds also for disputing the entitlement of the petitioner under the policies of regularisation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that he is not insisting on the counting of his entire service for pension but only his service in the Ranjit Sagar Dam Project. For this he has placed reliance on documents Annexures P-5 and P-6. In document Annexure P-5 it was mentioned as follows:-

The Standing Committee of RSDS Board, Chandigarh in its 42nd meeting held on 27.10.98 under item No. 42.04(i) decided to release all retirement benefits to the retired retrenchee employees of RSD-Project on the basis of pay drawn by them and pension be also allowed to meet their hardship.

In reply to this averment it has been stated that this document was intended to benefit only those persons who opted for regularisation. I find myself unable to agree with this submission because the letter Annexure P-5 does not mention any such limitation and is a completely open ended and unequivocal declaration of intent of granting pension to all the retired/retrenched employees. Learned counsel for the respondents have also relied upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court in DTC Retired Employees Association and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation wherein Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul (as His lordship then was) held as follows:-

13...........The moot point which arises for consideration is whether the petitioners who had exercised their option and the option was accepted which was subsequently withdrawn and the withdrawal accepted cannot be covered under the pension scheme. In my considered view the answer to this question would be in the negative. Undoubtedly once the option had been exercised and the same had been accepted both the parties are entitled to seek enforcement of the pension scheme in their case. However, the petitioners chose to withdraw from the scheme. It was up to the respondent to have accepted such a withdrawal or not to have accepted such a withdrawal.

Admittedly the withdrawal was accepted. Not only this the benefits pursuant thereto were availed of by the petitioners. Thus, the transaction relating to the withdrawal and the acceptance of the withdrawal stood concluded. Thus in my considered view no distinction can be made for these employees as compared to other employees who had exercised their option but withdrawn the same prior to its acceptance.

In my opinion this judgment would not be applicable in the present case since I am granting benefit to the petitioner in view of the unilateral decision of the respondents in document Annexure P-5. Learned counsel have also relied upon State of Punjab v. Boota Singh, reported as : 2000 (3) SCC 733, wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as follows:-

On merits we find that the retirement benefits which are claimed by the respondent are benefits which are conferred by subsequent orders/notifications. Therefore, persons who retired after the coming into force of these notifications and order are governed by different rules of retirement than those who retired under the old rules and were governed by the old rules. The two categories of persons, who retired were governed by two different sets of rules. They cannot, therefore, be equated. Further, granting of additional benefits has financial implications also. Hence, specifying the date for the conferment of such additional benefits cannot be considered as arbitrary.

Again this judgment would not be applicable in view of the unilateral declaration of the respondents in granting pensionary benefits to all retired/retrenched employees. Consequently on principle it has to be held that for the service rendered in the Ranjit Sagar Dam Project the petitioner would be entitled to pension.

Learned DAG has then argued that even if it is to be so yet, since at one point the petitioner was wanting to get the benefit of industrial law and his work charge status he continued in the job till the age of 60 and, therefore, even if pension has to be granted to him his service can be counted till the date he attained the age of 58 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to counter this argument. Consequently it has to be held that the petitioner would be entitled for pension only for the services rendered till the date he attained the age of 58 years. Since he had more than 10 years'' service on the date when he attained the age of 58 years he would be entitled to pension as per the period of eligible service. Learned DAG has also raised the issue that if the petitioner is to be held entitled to pension he must refund the Government''s contribution of Contributory Provident Fund as well as the benefits granted to him on retirement (under Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the relevant Industrial Standing Orders). In the circumstances it is held that the petitioner would be entitled to pension for the services he rendered in the Ranjit Sagar Dam Project provided he refund the pro-rata contribution of the Government to his Contributory Provident Fund as well as the retrenchment compensation which was given to him. The respondents are directed to grant pension, to compute the pensionary benefits and grant the same to them within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The refund be made from the arrears of pension which are payable to the petitioner. In case any due amount is not released to the petitioner within the aforesaid period the petitioner would be entitled to claim the same with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from 1.11.1997 till date. However, since petitioner Dilbag Singh has filed C.W.P. No. 13480 only in the year 2008, the payment of arrears to him would be restricted to a period of 38 months prior to the date of filing of the petition.

Petitions stand disposed of in the above terms.