Urmil Johar vs State of Punjab and Others

Jitendra Chauhan, J.

The petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 07.09.2010 (Annexure P-8), whereby, the claim of the petitioner for counting the service; rendered by her in the Punjab State University Text Book Board (for short, ''the Board''), towards qualifying service for the purposes of pension and other pensionary benefits has been rejected. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on 12.10.1971 in the Board on regular basis. Subsequently, she was promoted as Senior Assistant. During this period, she qualified the State Accounts Service (SAS) examination.

In response to the instructions dated 12.10.1992, the State of Punjab decided to fill up the vacancies of Section Officers from amongst the SAS qualified employees of the Corporations/Boards of the State of Punjab, by absorbing them after relaxation of Rule 6 of the Punjab State Subordinate Accounts (Class-III) Service Rules, 1978. The petitioner, being SAS qualified, exercised the option and was ultimately appointed as Section Officer with the respondent-State. The learned counsel refers to approval dated 04.10.2010 (Annexure P-18) to contend that once the petitioner had attained the age of 51 years, it will not be a case of re-appointment, rather, it will be a case of absorption by the Government.

The learned counsel has referred to judgment/order dated 26.02.2008, passed in CWP No. 7120 of 2002, titled as Smt. Krishna Khullar v. State of Punjab and another, (Annexure P-9) and judgment/order dated 23.02.2010, rendered in CWP No. 10008 of 2006, captioned as Ram Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others, (Annexure P-10) whereby, the same proposition stands settled. Against the judgment, Annexure P-10, of the Hon''ble Single Bench of this Court, the respondent-State preferred LPA No. 1122 of 2010, which also stands dismissed vide order dated 04.10.2010 (Annexure P-11).

The relevant portion of the judgment, Annexure P-11, reads thus:--

"In the aforesaid case, the Bench had occasion to consider a more or less identical situation where the State had refused an employee of the Punjab State Handloom and Textiles Development Corporation Limited (Puntex) subsequently absorbed in one of its departments, to refund the employer''s share of contributory provident fund so as to be entitled to pension and other pensionary benefits. The Division Bench look the view that absorption was not an incident of fresh recruitment and further the such absorption having been made on the basis of the option exercised by the employee as was made available by the respondent-State, the State cannot be allowed to resile from the earlier stand taken and embark upon a course of action to the prejudice of the absorbed employee. The facts of the present case are largely identical. We are, therefore, of the view that the principles laid down in Subhash Chander Chadha''s case (supra) would govern the instant matter also. We, therefore, respectfully concur with the view taken by the learned single Judge. The order under challenge is reiterated by dismissing the appeal."

In the considered opinion of this Court, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio of law laid down in Smt. Krishna Khullar''s and Ram Singh''s case (supra). In the circumstances, the impugned order, Annexure P-8, is quashed and the respondents are directed to re-consider and decide the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgments, Annexures P-9 to P-11, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. In case, the petitioner is found entitled to any consequential monetary benefit, the same shall be released to her forthwith.

Allowed.