Ram Kumar vs State of Haryana and others

Augustine George Masih, J.—Petitioner has approached this Court praying for counting the service rendered by him in the Haryana Tanneries Ltd., Jind w.e.f. 26.10.1975 to 30.11.1988 for the purpose of pension/retiral benefits and for the release of the benefits. Petitioner was appointed as a skilled worker in the Haryana Tanneries Ltd. on 26.10.1975. He continued as such when along with other employees, he was retrenched w.e.f. 30.11.1988 on account of closure of the corporation. The Haryana Tanneries Employees Union (Regd.) filed CWP No. 9469 of 1988 titled as Haryana Tanneries Employees Union (Regd.) Jind, Haryana vs. State of Haryana and another, in this Court which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 01.12.1988 (Annexure P-1) with directions issued to the respondents to absorb the retrenched employees within a period of six months and if need be, give relaxation in age limit. The retrenched employees were also held entitled to take into account the service rendered in the Haryana Tanneries Ltd. in case they are appointed in pensionable jobs for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. In compliance with the said order passed by this Court, petitioner was appointed as Peon in the Revenue Department by the Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani vide order dated 21.04.1991 and later on, his services were transferred to Kaithal District vide order dated 01.10.1992 and pay of the petitioner was protected by the Government of Haryana vide order dated 05.01.1996. Petitioner submitted a representation dated 06.05.2008 to the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal-respondent No. 2 praying for counting his service from 26.10.1975 to 30.11.1988 in the Haryana Tanneries Ltd. Jind in accordance with the order passed by this Court in Haryana Tanneries Employees Union (Regd.) Jind, Haryana (supra). The case of the petitioner was recommended by respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 05.03.2009, which was returned back by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Guhla, District Kaithal-respondent No. 3 with the remarks that the benefit of past service if is to be counted, the pension case be also sent along with the same for the approval of the Government. Petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years on 30.06.2009 but while releasing his retiral benefits, the services rendered by him in the Haryana Tanneries Ltd. Jind, have not been counted nor any benefit granted. This action of the respondents not granting him the benefit is under challenge in the present writ petition.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in Haryana Tanneries Employees Union (Regd.) Jind, Haryana (supra), the petitioner is entitled to the said benefit and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Reply on behalf of the respondents has been filed in Court and on the basis of the said reply, counsel for the respondents submits that the case was sent to the Accountant General, Haryana, Chandigarh, for grant of pensionary benefits but the same has been returned with the objection that the decision with regard to the counting of the service rendered by the petitioner in the Haryana Tanneries Ltd. Jind is to be taken by the Government as this benefit cannot be granted under the Rules.

Reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Guhla, District Kaithal�respondent No. 3 wherein he has stated that the case, after preparing it for sanction of the Government, has been forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal, for onward transmission of the Government but the Government has not taken any decision thereon. Faced with this situation, counsel for the respondents submits that the Government has already taken a decision, which is in the form of the Pension Payment Order dated 03.08.2010 (Annexure P-7) wherein the petitioner has been granted the pensionary benefits for the period of service rendered by him in the Government Departments and the petitioner is not entitled to any further benefits. He, accordingly, prays for dismissal of the present writ petition.

I have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have gone through the records of the case.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed as a skilled worker in Haryana Tanneries Ltd. on 26.10.1975 and he continued to work as such till his retrenchment on 30.11.1988 on account of closure of the corporation. The Haryana Tanneries Employees Union (Regd.) preferred CWP No. 9469 of 1988 (supra) which was decided by this Court vide order dated 01.12.1988 (Annexure P-1) which reads as follows:-

Both the parties agree that the petition may be disposed of at the motion stage itself.

We have heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the State. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we think that the most equitable course is the one that was followed by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in G. Govinda Rajulu Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Construction Corporation Limited and Another, Following that precedent, we direct the respondents to take the retrenched employees either as Class IV employees or other managerial staff in the Government Corporations or Boards according to the qualifications of each of the employees and their fitness. Such absorption of the retrenched employees shall be done within a period of six months from this date. If any relaxation of the age limit is necessary, that shall also have to be done before appointment. The retrenched employees also will be entitled to take into account the service rendered in the Haryana Tanneries Ltd. in case they are appointed in pensionable jobs for the purpose of pension and other retirement benefits. However, it is made clear that any appointment made under this order shall be treated as new appointment for the purpose of seniority among the employees. This relief given is also without prejudice to the retirement and any other compensation, they may be entitled to under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There will be an order accordingly.

In the light of the above order, which has attained finality, respondent-Government cannot now say that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the period of service rendered by him in the Haryana Tanneries Ltd. There is a specific and clear direction issued by this Court that retrenched employees will also be entitled to take into account the service rendered in the Haryana Tanneries Ltd. in case they are appointed in the pensionable jobs for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits.

It is not disputed that the post, on which the petitioner was appointed i.e. Peon in the office of the Revenue Department, is a pensionable post. If that be so, petitioner is entitled to counting of his service which he had rendered from 26.10.1975 till 30.11.1988 for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits.

In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. A direction is issued to the respondents to count the service rendered by the petitioner from 26.10.1975 till 30.11.1988 in Haryana Tanneries Ltd. and grant him the benefit of the said service for pension and other retiral benefits. The consequential benefits be released to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.