IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 13528 of 2001
Date of decision: 3rd December, 2008
Dr. Dharmpal Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.D. Sharma, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Reply filed by the University to CM No. 22 of 2003 is taken on
record. Counsel appearing for the University has stated that written
statement filed to the writ petition on behalf of Punjab Agricultural
University be also read as written statement filed by the successor
University i.e. Guru Angad Dev Veterinary University.
Present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that a writ in
the nature of certiorari be issued and letter dated 19th April, 2001
(Annexure P-9) and dated 9th August, 2001 (Annexure P-11) be quashed
and respondents be directed to accept the application dated 5th March,
2001 (Annexure P-8), whereby the petitioner had sought voluntary
retirement. Vide Annexure P-9, it was held by the University that the
service rendered by the petitioner on the post of Assistant Animal
Geneticist at a fixed salary of Rs.700/- cannot be counted towards his
Civil Writ Petition No. 13528 of 2001 2
service to the post of Research Associate, because earlier post was a non-
teaching post. Therefore, he has not completed 20 years qualifying service
in the University to earn pensionary benefits and the period of
extraordinary leave from 26th July, 1996 to 18th July, 1999 without pay,
cannot be considered towards pensionary benefits. Vide Annexure P-11, it
was again reiterated that the period of service on the post of Research
Associate rendered by the petitioner cannot be counted towards 20 years
qualifying service.
Having noticed the prayer and grievance of the petitioner, the
brief facts of the present writ petition can be recapitulated from the
averments made in the writ petition and the written statement filed.
Petitioner was working as Associate Professor in the Department of Animal
Breeding and Genetics, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana at the
time of retirement.
Petitioner at the time of joining University, applied for the post
of Research Fellow in the Department of Animal Sciences, Punjab
Agricultural University against two posts advertised by the University. A
Selection Committee was constituted and petitioner appeared in the
interview. Thereafter, since the petitioner possessed requisite qualification
and was successful in the interview, on the basis of merit, he was
appointed as a Research Fellow on stop-gap basis for a period of six
months at a fixed fellowship of Rs.700/- in the scheme. Petitioner, in view
of the appointment letter, again joined the respondent University as
Research Fellow on 10th February, 1978. On 22nd May, 1978, petitioner
was again appointed as Research Associate against the post of Assistant
Animal Geneticist on temporary basis at a fixed salary of Rs.700/-. On 27th
February, 1978, vide Annexure P-7, Punjab Agricultural University
approved the rules and granted benefit of leave travel allowance and
medical facilities to the whole time Research Fellows, who were working in
Civil Writ Petition No. 13528 of 2001 3
the various schemes in the University. On 17th March, 1982, petitioner was
appointed by the respondent University as Assistant Animal Geneticist in
the scale of Rs.700-1600. Later on, petitioner was promoted to the post of
Associate Professor on 16th March, 1996 w.e.f. 18th March, 1996 in the
scale of Rs.3700-5700.
Case of the petitioner is that he has rendered 20 years
qualifying service and on 5th March, 2001, he applied to the Vice
Chancellor of the University for voluntary retirement from the University
service w.e.f. 7th March, 2001. He further states that initial service rendered
by him as Research Fellow is not being counted towards the pensionary
benefits. In the written statement, it has been stated that petitioner
remained on extraordinary leave without pay, for a period of two years 11,
months and 24 days, i.e. from 26th July, 1996 to 18th July, 1999. According
to Mr.S.D.Sharma, who is assisted by Mr.Surinder Sharma, appearing for
the University, the period availed by the petitioner as extraordinary leave is
not to be calculated and computed for the pensionary benefits. He states
that as per the University rules, the period for which no pay has been
drawn, cannot be counted towards pensionary benefits.
Mr. Sunil Chadha assisting Mr.Rajiv Atma Ram, appearing for
the petitioner states that petitioner has rendered service for a total period
of 23 years and 27 days, and if the period of extraordinary leave i.e. 2
years, 11 months and 24 days is deducted, petitioner has served the
University for 20 years, 1 month and 3 days, therefore, he has qualified for
the pensionary benefits.
Having noticed the rival contentions, dispute between the
parties remains in a narrow compass. This Court has to decide whether the
period of the service commencing from 25th January, 1978 to 17th March,
1982, when petitioner was working in the University on a fixed salary on
temporary basis for six months extension without any break, is to be
Civil Writ Petition No. 13528 of 2001 4
considered towards pension or not. Mr.Sunil Chadha has relied upon a
Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in ‘Rai Singh and another
v. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra’ Civil Writ Petition No.2246 of
2008, decided on August 18, 2008, to contend that any service rendered
on contract basis or adhoc service is to be counted towards the pensionary
benefits. It has been held by the Division Bench as under:
“4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a Full
Bench judgment of this Court in Kesar Chand v. State of
Punjab and others, 1988(2) PLR 223, wherein validity of
Rule 3.17 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II
was considered, which provided for temporary or officiating
service followed by regularization to be counted as qualifying
service but excluded period of service in work charge
establishment. It was held that if temporary or officiating
service was to be counted towards qualifying service, it was
illogical that period of service in a work charge establishment
was not counted.
6. As held in Kesar Chand (supra), pension is not a
bounty and is for the service rendered. It is a social welfare
measure to meet hardship in the old age. The employees can
certainly be classified on rational basis for the purpose of
grant or denial of pension. A cut off date can also be fixed
unless the same is arbitrary or discriminatory. In absence of
valid classification, discriminatory treatment is not permissible.
7. Once the employees have been regularised and are
held entitled to pension by counting adhoc service, exclusion
of service “on contract basis” will be discriminatory.
Appointment on contract basis is a type of adhoc service.
Mere fact that nominal breaks are given or lesser pay is given
or increments are not given, is no ground to treat the said
service differently. Beneficial provision for pension having
been extended to adhoc employees, denial of the said benefit
to employees working on contract basis, who also stand on
same footing as employees appointed on adhoc basis cannot
be held to be having any rational basis. Judgment of this Court
in Kesar Chand (supra) is fully applicable.
Civil Writ Petition No. 13528 of 2001 5
8. Accordingly, we allow this writ petition and declare that
the contractual employees who have rendered continuous
service (ignoring nominal breaks) followed by regularization in
a pensionable establishment, will be entitled to be treated at
par with adhoc employees in such establishments, for
counting their qualifying service for pension.”
Mr.S.D. Sharma assisted by Mr.Surinder Sharma, is unable to
controvert the ratio of law laid in above said judgment. Therefore, present
writ petition is accepted. Service rendered by the petitioner from 25th
January, 1978 to 17th March, 1982 shall be counted towards pensionary
benefits, however, the period of extraordinary leave, as mentioned above,
shall not be counted towards calculation and computation of pension.
Respondent University shall disburse the arrears and pensionary benefits
within three months from the receipt of certified copy of this order.
With these observations present writ petition is allowed.
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA]
JUDGE
December 3, 2008
rps