Rati Ram vs State of Haryana and Another

G.S. Singhvi, J.—The petitioner has sought issue of a writ of mandamus for counting his service with effect from 16.6.1954 to 31.7.1967 as qualifying service for the grant of pension and other retrral benefits.

Some of the facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner joined service under the Panchayat Samiti, Bhadhra, on 16.6.1954 as Secretary. His appointment as Panchayat Secretary was approved by the Director of Panachayats. Initially, the petitioner was put under the Control of the Gram Panchayat but after the amendment of the Panchayat Act the petitioner was treated as an employee of the Panchayat Samiti and he was placed under the control of Panchayat Samiti. In the year 1971 further amendment was made in the Panchayat Act and the Panchayat Secretaries came to be designated as Gram Sachivs. A decision was also taken to absorb the existing Gram Sachivs in the Government service. The candidature of the petitioner was also considered by a committee constituted for that purpose and on the recommendations of the committee the petitioner was posted as Gram Sachiv under the Government with effect from 27.11.1972, a post which the petitioner held till his retirement i.e., 31.5.1982.

The service rendered by the petitioner between 16.6.1954 and 26.11.1972, was not counted for the purpose of pension and, therefore, the petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 6487 of 1989. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the petition vide order dated 14.3.1991 and directed the respondents to give all benefits due to the petitioner in terms of the judgment dated 19.7.1989 rendered in C.W.P.No. 10069 of 1988 (Ram Chander and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.). The petitioner contends that notwithstanding the order passed by the High Court the Government has refused to count his service between 16.6.1954 and 31.7.1967 for the purpose of granting pension. The representation made by the petitioner for counting his total service for grant of post-retiral benefits has been rejected vide Annexure P-3 dated 17.9.1993 and this has compelled the petitioner to file the present writ petition.

In their written statement, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have pleaded that all the monetary benefits due to the petitioner have already been given to him. Respondents have disputed the claim of the petitioner for counting his service from 16.6.1954 to 31.7.1967 for the purpose of pension on the ground that the petitioner had entered the service of the Panchayat Samiti on 1.8.1967 and only with effect from that date his service can be counted for the purpose of pension.

Replication and reply to the replication have also been filed by the parties reiterating their respective cases.

The first argument of Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that persons similarly situated, namely, Kanahya Lai and Gilu Ram, have been given the benefit of total service for the purpose of pension and other post-retiral benefits, but in the case of the petitioner benefits of total service has not been extended to him. The learned Assistant-Advocate General replied that the benefit which was earlier given to Shri Kanahya Lal has since been withdrawn and steps are being taken to make recovery from the pension payable to Shri Kanahya Lal. She relied on Annexures R.2. R.3 and R.4 to show that excess payment made to Shri Kanahya Lal is being recovered by the Government. In our opinion, the petitioner cannot succeed in claiming relief on the basis of the plea of discrimination because even in the case of Kanahya Lal the Government has revised the pension payment order issued in favour of Kanahya Lal and has taken steps to make recovery from the said Kanahya Lai of the amount allegedly paid to him in excess of the money due. The petitioner can claim benefit given to Kanahya Lal only if the Government ultimately decides to continue to make payment of Kanahya Lal in terms of order Annexure P-10. However, as on date Kanahya Lal''s entitlement to get higher pension is being seriously contested.

The second contention of Shri Gupta is that the service rendered by the petitioner under the Panchayat Samiti ought to have been taken into consideration for the purpose of calculation of pension etc. and as the petitioner had joined service on 16.6.1954 under the Panchayat Samiti, Bhadhra, his total period of service should have been counted for the purpose of determination of his pension and other retirement dues. In this context, it is important to mention that in para 2 of the writ petition an unequivocal statement has been made by the petitioner that he was appointed under the Panchayat Samiti, Bhadhra, with effect from 16.6.1954. He was initially placed under the control of the Gram Panchayat but subsequently he was put under the control of the Panchayat Samiti. Respondents have disputed this claim and have stated that the petitioner''s service was taken under the Panchayat Samiti with effect from 1.8.1967. The petitioner has reiterated his plea in the replication and the respondents have also pleaded that the service rendered by the petitioner as Panchayat Secretary cannot be counted for the purpose of pension. In our opinion, the mere fact that the petitioner, was placed under the control of Gram Panchayat cannot in any manner affect his position as an employee of the Panchayat Samiti. The respondents have not chosen to deny the allegation of the petitioner that he was appointed under the Panchayat Samiti, Bhadhra, with effect from 16.6.1954. Document Annexure R.I which has been filed by the respondents along with the reply does not show that the petitioner''s initial appointment was not under the Panchayat Samiti. Rather, the first entry in Annexure R.I shows that the petitioner was appointed by the Panchayat Officer, Mohindergarh. This entry has been signed by the Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti Bhadhra. This entry clearly supports the plea of the petitioner that he had been appointed under the Panchayat Samiti, Bhadhra.

Circular Annexure P-4 shows that the Government had taken a decision to count the service rendered by the employees with the District Boards, Zila Parishads and Panchayat Samitis towards pension etc. from their date of appointment in these bodies. This circular does not require that a person must have remained posted with Panchayat Samiti throughout the period of his service. Therefore, if in a case like that of the petitioner the employee was posted in a Gram Panchayat while holding an appointment under the Panchayat Samiti, benefit of total service cannot be denied for the purpose of pension etc. In taking a contrary view the respondents have committed a patent illegality. Narrow interpretation sought to be placed on the circular dated 22.11.1991 is not at all justified because such an interpretation would lead to anamolous results. Out of the two employees appointed in the service of the Panchayat Samiti one may be given benefit of total service for the purpose of pension because he may have physically served the Panchayat Samiti and the other will be deprived of that benefit only on the ground that he was asked to serve some other body like the Gram Panchayat. In our opinion, there is no justification to adopt such a narrow interpretation of the circular dated 22.11.1991.

We may also refer to two decisions of the Supreme Court. In State of Gujarat and Others Vs. Raman Lal Keshav Lal and Others, , their Lordships of the Supreme Court declared that the employees of the Panchayats constituted under the Panchayat Act hold civil posts and the service under the Panchayat Act is civil service. This decision was rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. But as is apparent from perusal of the subsequent judgment in State of Gujarat and Another Vs. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni and Others, , the aforesaid judgment in Mathuradas''s case (supra) was set aside on an application filed by the State of Gujarat. In Raman Lal''s case (supra) another Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court examined the matter and held that the members of the Gujarat Panchayat service are Government servants.

In view of these judgments also,, the service rendered by the petitioner under the control of the Gram Panchayat shall have to be treated as service rendered under the Government and in any case as service rendered under the Panchayat Samiti. We, therefore, hold that rejection of the claim of the petitioner for counting his entire service from 16.6.1954 for the purpose of pension and other post-retiral benefits is illegal.

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-3 is declared illegal and is quashed. The respondents are directed to re-calculate the pension of the petitioner by counting his total service with effect from 16.6.1954. The other retiral benefits paid to the petitioner should also be recalculated accordingly. Payment of arrears due to the petitioner as a result of recalculation of pension and other postretiral dues shall be made to him within 4 months of the submission of a a certified copy of this order. If the payment is not so made to the petitioner, he shall get interest at the rate of 18% on the amount of arrears with effect from the date of this order. Parties to bear their own costs.