Rajinder Singh vs State of Punjab

V.K. Bali, J.—Period that petitioner served in National Defence Scheme under Government of India on the post of N.D.S. Junior Grade II from 3.8.1962 to 28.2.1969, seems to have been wrongly excluded for the purpose of counting pension and other post-retiral benefits.

It is for this precise relief that the petitioner has knocked at the door of this Court by filing present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

The bare minimum facts on which relief asked for and, as indicated above, is sought to rest reveal that pe-titionerjoined Government service in the National Defence Scheme on 3.8.1962 under Union of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development (Department of Youth Affairs and Sports). He was placed in the N.D.S.I. Grade I and granted scale of Rs. 110-200/-with effect from 24.5.1963. The scheme in which petitioner was employed, later on, merged with the National Fitness Corps, under respondent No. 3 (Ministry of Education) and the petitioner was declared quasi permanent vide order dated 24.9.1966 with effect from 24.5.1966. Petitioner was then promoted as Senior N.D.S.I, Grade II on 8.4. 1966 in the pay scale of Rs. 150-240. The State of Punjab advertised the posts of Company Commanders in the Punjab Home Guards. Petitioner applied for the aforesaid post through proper channel and his application was sent through respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 1 for consideration vide letter No. F2 (2185)NFC.NR.68 dated 13.1.1969. Copy of forwarding letter has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-5. Petitioner was called for interview and selected as a Company Commander, Punjab Home Guards. Consequent upon his selection, petitioner joined the department as Company Commander at Gurdaspur on 1.3.1969 and retired on 31.3.1983 from the said department as District Commander.

It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1982, Government of Punjab issued a notification dated 25.5,1982, vide which service benefits had been allowed for the service rendered by an employee even on temporary basis in the Central Government/State Government. Copy of the notification has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-7. Relevant part thereof reads as under :-

"Subject : Allocation of pensionary liability in respect of temporary service rendered under the Government of India and State Government.

This benefit will be admissible only to the following categories of employees :-

(1) Those who having been relrenched from the service of Central/State Government secured on their own employment under State/Central Government, either with or without interruption between the date of retrenchment and date of new appointment.

(2) Those who while holding temporary posts under Central/State Government apply for the posts un der State/Central Government through proper channel with proper permission of the administrative authority concerned."

It has been pleaded that Commandant General, Home Guards and Director, Civil Defence (respondent No. 2 herein) after receipt of notification Annexure P-7 allowed the benefits of service rendered by one Shri H.S. Bhuller, who is at present, working in the same organisation and his service record was corrected as such for the benefit of pension. The same benefit to the petitioner was, however, not allowed on the ground that he was Class II employee and Central Government has not given permission. Constrained, petitioner filed representation Annexure P-9. When he received no reply the same, he sent reminders and in his reminder Annexure P-10, it was mentioned that benefit of previous service as given to Coy. Commander M.S. Bhuller be also given to him by counting the service rendered by him in the previous department. Respondent No. 2 thereafter addressed a letter to respondent No. 3 to verify the joining report and service record of the petitioner but respondent No. 3 while giving such information has added in the letter that petitioner was not entitled for pension as he was on temporary post. When petitioner came to know about the aforesaid letter, he brought notification issued by the State Government to the notice of concerned respondent and reiterated that respondent No. 1 had taken decision on 20.5.1982 that every employee working on temporary post under Central/State Government will be entitled for the pensionary benefits for the service so rendered. No decision, however, was taken, thus, constraining the petitioner once again to send reminders to the concerned respondent. Number of reminders were sent thereafter but when order Annexure P-18 rejecting the claim of the petitioner was passed, the present writ was filed.

The claim of the petitioner herein has been opposed primarily on the basis of Rule 3.17A of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol. II (Annexure R-1) and also Government instructions dated 20th of May, 1982 (Annexure P-7), Note appended to Rule 3.17 which has been, in fact, pressed into service during the course of arguments, reads thus :-

"In the case of Central Government employee who is permanently transferred to the Punjab Government and becomes subject to these rules, the pensionary benefits admissible for the service under Central Government would be that admissible under the Government of India rules and the liability for such benefits will be allocated in accordance with the prevalent orders."

After hearing the learned Counsel representing the parties, this Court is of the considered view that opposition to the prayer made in the petition on the twin grounds based upon note to Rule 3.17 of Punjab C.S.R. Vol. II and government instructions dated 20th of May, i982, Annexure P-7 is absolutely hollow. Note appended to Rule 3.17 of the Punjab C.S.R. Vol. II deals with the case where the person was a Central Government employee and has been permanently transferred to Punjab Government. His pensionary benefits would be such as he would have got had he continued to remain to be employee of the Central Government and the liability for such benefits has to be allocated in the prevalent order. This Court has not been apprised of the prevalent orders to the note appended to Rule 3.17 but it appears that the same may be with regard to sharing of post-retirat benefits to such an employee by Central and State Governments. Be that as it may, note appended to Rule 3.17 cannot possibly apply to the facts of the case. Concededly, herein, the petitioner resigned from the job that he was holding with the Central Government and came to be employed de novo through proper channel by the State Government. In his case it is Annexure P-7 relevant portion whereof has been reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment that will hold the field.

Before I may part to deal with this matter, I would like to mention that note appended to Rule 3.17 appears to be for a purpose i.e. that a person who of his own volition and not by an order has been transferred from Central to State Government should not be placed at a disadvantage in the matter of pensionary benefits. It is rather strange as to how and in what manner respondent-State relies on Annexure P-7 for resisting the claim of the petitioner. The instructions contained in Annexure P-7 in terms support the cause of the petitioner. Sub-clause (2) of para 2 of instructions Annexure P-7 do apply to an employee who was holding a temporary post under the Central/State Government and applies for posts under State/Central Government through proper channel and with proper permission of the concerned administrative authority. It could not be disputed during the course of arguments that in tune with the instructions contained in para I of instructions Annexure P-7, the petitioner is actually covered under sub-para (2) and, thus, shall be entitled to count his service rendered in the Central Govern-ment even though on temporary basis for the purposes of counting his pensionary benefits. The service rendered by the petitioner in the Central Government has to be clubbed with the service rendered by the petitioner in the State Government and after doing so his pensionary benefits have to be calculated.

Mr. Malhotra who represents Union of India only states that since it is a case of resignation, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to the benefits claimed by him. However, in support of his contention nothing at all has been shown that may have any bearing on the point under discussion.

In view of the discussion made above, this petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the respondents to calculate the pension of the petitioner by including the entire span of the petitioner''s service rendered by him, even though on temporary basis, in the Central Government. Let this exercise be done within three weeks from the date certified copy of the judgment is received by the respondents and the amount of arrears be made over to the petitioner within next three weeks.

Petition allowed.