Jang Singh Giani vs State of Punjab and Others

Ajay Tewari, J.—The claim in this writ petition is for counting service of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.9.1967 to 1.1.1979 for the purpose of pension on the ground that he had worked during the relevant time. The second claim is that while releasing the DCRG in the year 1997, a sum of Rs. 10,317/- has been deducted without giving him any show cause notice or any explanation for the same. He prays that the said amount should also be paid to the petitioner. In reply, the stand taken is that the petitioner started contributing towards the CPF w.e.f. 1.1.1979 and consequentially his service from 1.9.1967 to 1.1.1979 could not be counted for the purpose of pension. It is further stated in the reply that it came to the notice of the audit party that the petitioner remained absent for the months of April 1992 to July 1992 and since he had taken salary for the said period, this amount had to be deducted from his DCRG.

As regards the first plea, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ramesh Tuli (Smt.) v. State of Punjab (P & H), 2007 (3) SCT 791.

In the said case, the petitioner therein had been working in a school and prayed for counting her service w.e.f. 17.8.1965 to 30.8.1990 the date on which she had started contributing towards the CPF. A Division Bench of this Court held the action of the respondents to be wrong and while relying upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Vasant Gangaramsa Chandan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, , held as follows:-

In view of the above, the action of the respondents in refusing to grant pension to the petitioner is declared as illegal. The impugned order dated 30.9.2002 (P-3) is quashed. The petitioner is held entitled to count her entire service with effect from 17.8.1965 to 30.9.2001 as qualifying service for the purposes of pension. However, her contribution to the Contributory Provident Fund with effect from 17.8.1965 to 30.8.1980, which was required to be made by the petitioner, shall along with interest be adjusted and deducted from the arrears of her pension. The respondents are, therefore, directed to calculate the pension and fix the same within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received by them. The arrears after calculation in the aforementioned manner be paid to her within the stipulated period along with other retiral benefits, if any.

Counsel for the respondents has not been able to cite any contrary judgment. Consequently, being in respectful agreement with the view of their Lordships, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for counting of his service w.e.f. 1.9.1967 to 1.1.1979 for the purpose of pensionary benefits and, therefore, direct the respondents to re-compute his pensionary benefits after considering his entire service from 1967 to 1996.

With regard to the second claim, in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court in paras 14 and 17 held as follows:-

We may point out that in Syed Abdul Qadir case such a direction was given keeping in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case since the beneficiaries had either retired or were on the verge of retirement and so as to avoid any hardship to them.

We are, therefore, of the considered view that except few instances pointed out in Syed Abdul Qadir case (supra) and in Col. B.J. Akkara (retd.) case (supra), the excess payment made due to wrong/irregular pay fixation can always be recovered.

Resultantly, the deduction made from the petitioner can also not be justified. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to workout the exact benefits payable to the petitioner in terms of para 7 of the judgment in Ramesh Tuli''s case (supra), and pay the same as also the amount of Rs. 10,317/- within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case, the payment is not made within the stipulated period, the petitioner would be entitled to interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of his retirement till the date of payment.