Satish Rani Sood vs State of Punjab and Others

Augustine George Masih, J.—By this order, I proposed to dispose of two writ petitions i.e. CWP No. 9125 of 2011 titled as Satish Rani Sood v. State of Punjab and others and CWP No. 5131 of 2010 titled as Sushil Kumari v. State of Punjab and others with the consent of the counsel for the parties as the issues involved in these cases are same on facts as well as on law. For convenience, facts are being taken from CWP No. 9125 of 2011.

Petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the office of Panchayat Samiti, Morinda-respondent No. 6 on compassionate ground after the death of her husband Sh. Raj Kumar, who was working as a Panchayat Secretary. In pursuance to the appointment letter dated 23.2.1998, petitioner joined the service on 27.2.1998. While serving the respondents, she retired as a Junior Assistant w.e.f. 31.3.2010 rendering more than 12 years of service with the Panchayat Samiti, Morinda. She has not been granted the pension on the ground of late deduction of the Contributory Provident Fund (for short ''CPF'') of the petitioner because of which she does not fulfil the qualifying service of 10 years. This action of the respondents is challenged by the petitioner by way of the present petition asserting that it was the responsibility of the employer to deduct the CPF from the salary of the petitioner and for the late starting of the deduction of the said CPF, petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same and cannot be put to a disadvantageous position. Petitioner had volunteered to deposit the CPF with respondent No. 6, which has been duly accepted by the said Authority and her case has been forwarded to the Director Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab-respondent No. 3. Despite recommendation made in the case of the petitioner, pension has not, as yet, been released to her.

Upon notice issued by this Court, consolidated reply has been filed by the respondents No. 1 to 5 and 7 and a separate reply has been filed by respondent No. 6. The stand taken by respondents No. 1 to 5 and 7 is that as per Rule 2(k) of the Punjab Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Employees Pension & Provident Fund Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ''the 2000 Rules''), "qualifying service" means the service of an employee of a Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad, as the case may be, for which he has made contribution towards the Contributory Provident Fund before and after the commencement of these rules. Since the qualifying service, as per this definition, only is with regard to the period for which the contribution has been made by the employee, petitioner has rightly been denied the grant of pension.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the claim of the petitioner is covered in her favour by the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 16690 of 2011 Charanjit Singh and others v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another, decided on 12.3.2012 wherein similar rule applicable to the employees of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation has been interpreted by this Court and the Court had ultimately come to a conclusion that there appears to be no justification to exclude the service from qualifying service for the grant of pensionary benefits although they have not deposited the CPF when the same was to be deducted by the employer and especially when the petitioners were ready and willing to deposit their contribution along with interest from the date of their appointment. He, on this basis, contends that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed and the directions be issued to the respondents to grant the pension of the petitioner.

Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 5 and 7 asserts that the claim of the petitioners would not be covered by the said judgment as the Statutory Rules define the qualifying service, which the petitioners have to fulfill, and for calculating the said period, definition has been provided in Rule 2(k) of the 2000 Rules which is not under challenge in the present writ petition. She further contends that the claim of the petitioners being not covered by the Statutory Rules does not entitle them to the prayer made in the present writ petitions.

Counsel for respondent No. 6, however, supports the case of the petitioner and admitted that the CPF along with interest stands deposited by the petitioner with respondent No. 6 from the initial date of her appointment and the said respondent has forwarded the claim of the petitioner to respondent No. 3-the Director Rural Development and Panchayat.

On considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner is covered in her favour by the judgment passed by this Court in Charanjit Singh''s case (Supra) where in a similar set of facts and circumstances where the regulations under which the CPF Scheme was made applicable, was para materia with the language of Rule 2(k) of the 2000 Rules. On considering the same, this Court had proceeded to pass the following order:--

[8] It may be appropriate at this stage to refer Regulation 6 of the PEPSU Road Transport Corporation Employees Pension/Gratuity and General Provident Fund Regulations, 1992, relied upon by the Corporation to count the ''qualifying service'' from the date an employee starts contributing towards the Contributory Provident Fund and the same reads as follows:--

Qualifying Service: (1) The qualifying service will be taken into account with effect from the date of an existing employee started contributing towards the Contributory Provident Fund.

(2) The service of an employee shall not qualify for retirement benefits under the said regulations unless:--

(i) he attains the age of eighteen years;

(ii) he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed except for which it is otherwise provident by special rules or contract; and

(3) The leave admissible under the Corporation regulations and under the instructions issued by the Corporation from time to time, shall qualify for pension but leave without pay and period of suspension, overstay of leave not subsequently regularized under the above said regulations and the period of break in service shall not be reckoned as qualifying service.

(4) In a case where the total qualifying service is less than 10 years no pension benefit shall be admissible.

[9] Somewhat similar worded Rule, namely, Rule-6 of the Punjab Privately Managed Recognized Aided Schools Retirement Benefits Scheme, 1992, was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Ram Lubhaya Khanna and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, and following the earlier decisions including Kasturi Lal Khurana''s case (supra), it was held that "the ratio of the above mentioned judgment would apply to the facts of the instant case, inasmuch as, the provision made in clause 6(6) of the 1992 Scheme has to be read down to mean that qualifying service would commence from the date of continuous appointment or from an earlier date if the employee had started contributing to the Contributory Provident Fund. Therefore, the petitioners would be entitled to counting of their service with effect from the date of their appointment.

[10] The issue was re-agitated before this Court at the instance of the respondent-Corporation in CWP No. 19292 of 2010 (Pritam Singh v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and others) decided on 23.2.2012 also but its plea was turned down, observing that "the service rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 6.2.1971 to 1.1.1972 was with the respondent-Corporation only. There appears to be no justification to exclude the said service from ''qualifying service'' for the grant of pensionary benefits, though the petitioner shall be required to deposit the arrears of CPF drawn for the said period alongwith interest that may be determined by the Corporation.

[11] Following the above cited precedents, there can be no other conclusion but to allow the present writ petition subject to the same terms and conditions and the time schedule as has been prescribed in operative part of the order dated 23.2.2012 passed in Pritam Singh''s case (supra).

In view of the above, present writ petition is allowed. Direction is issued to respondent No. 3 to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the fact that she has already deposited the CPF along with interest with a matching grant with the share deposited by respondent No. 6 and on taking this complete period of service which the petitioner had rendered with respondent No. 6 as qualifying service, shall grant the benefit to the petitioner. This exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

As regards the claim of the petitioner in CWP No. 5131 of 2010, it has been pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had already offered the deposit of the share of the CPF along with interest to respondent No. 7-Block Samiti, Block Ludhiana-II, Zila Parishad Office, Ludhiana, which offer has also been accepted by the said respondent but in the light of the fact that respondent No. 3 has already rejected the claim of the petitioner, the amount could not be forwarded to the said respondent.

Counsel for respondent No. 7 accepts the liability to deposit the share of CPF of the said respondent after deposit of the CPF share by the petitioner and forward the same to the competent Authority for consideration and disbursal of the pensionary claim of the petitioner.

In the light of the above, this writ petition is allowed and direction is issued to the petitioner to deposit her share of CPF along with interest to be assessed by respondent No. 7 within a period of six weeks from today. On receipt of the said amount, respondent No. 7, by adding its share of CPF along with interest, shall forward the claim of the petitioner to respondent No. 3-Director Rural Development and Panchayat within a further period of two weeks. On such forwarding of the claim of the petitioner by respondent No. 7, the Director Rural Development and Panchayat-respondent No. 3 shall consider the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a further period of four weeks. It goes without saying that on deposit of the CPF along with interest, the qualifying service of the petitioner shall be taken as the date of initial appointment till the date of her retirement and benefits be released to her within a further period of one month.