CWP No.2582 of 2004 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP No.2582 of 2004
Date of decision: 30.10.2008
Baldev Singh Dhaliwal ..Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 & 3.
Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab for respondent No.2.
Ashutosh Mohunta, J. (oral)
The petitioner was appointed as a Language Teacher
(Punjabi) by the Director of Education (Administration II Branch),
Delhi and joined on 20.1.1965. He was confirmed on the said post by
the Delhi Administration vide office order No.264 dated 15.2.1971. The
petitioner worked with Delhi Administration upto 21.3.1972. While in
service, the petitioner applied through proper channel for the post of
S.S. Master in the Education Department in the State of Punjab. He was
selected as S.S. Master. On selection, the services of the petitioner was
transferred to the Education Department Punjab and he continued to
serve with the State of Punjab till his superannuation on 31.5.1996. The
petitioner retired as a Principal of Government Senior Secondary
School, Gharuan, District Ropar.
The petitioner has prayed that the services rendered by him
from 20.1.1965 to 21.3.1972 with the Directorate of Education
CWP No.2582 of 2004 2
(Administration II Branch), Delhi be counted for the purpose of pay
protection, other service benefits and pensionary benefits.
Separate replies have been filed on behalf of State of
Punjab as well as Directorate of Education (Administration II Branch),
Delhi.
Learned counsel for the State of Punjab has relied upon
letter No.2/12/97-1Edu.4/117 dated 14.1.2003 (Annexure R-1) from the
Secretary School Education, Punjab to the Directorate of Education
(Administration II Branch), Delhi, which which reads as under:-
“I am directed to invite a reference to this
Government Letter No.2/12/97-1 Edu.IV/995 dated
1.4.1999 on the subject noted above and to say that Sh.
Baldev Singh Dhaliwal was appointed as Language teacher
(Punjabi) by Directorate of Education, Delhi vide office
order No.Ad-II(3) Lang/Punjabi/16/64 dated 16.1.65 (Copy
enclose). His services were permanently transferred to the
Directorate of Public Instructions, Punjab (Education
Department) w.e.f. 21.3.1972 vide letter No.School/RAR/
71-72, Dated 21.3.1972 (copy enclosed). Thus Sh.
Dhaliwal worked as Language teacher under the Directorate
of Education, New Delhi from 20.1.1965 to 21.3.1972 later
on, his General provident Fund amounting to Rs.2235 was
transferred to the Directorate of Public Instructions, Punjab,
Chandigarh vide Controller of Accounts letter No.PFA-VI-
4/P/441/364-65, dated 11.7.1977 (copy enclosed).
2. Sh. Dhaliwal has retired on 31.5.1996 on attaining
the age of superannuation. He has represented to this State
Government for the grant of pensionery benefits in respect
of service rendered by him in your Directorate from
CWP No.2582 of 2004 320.1.1965 to 21.3.1972. It has since been decided in
consultation with the Government of India that
proportionate pensionery liability in respect of temporary
service rendered under the Central Government/State
Government to the extent such service would have qualified
for grant of pension under the rules of the respective
Government, will be shared by the Govt. concerned on a
service-share basis, so that the Govt. employees are allowed
the benefit of counting their qualifying service. A copy of
Punjab Government Instructions No.16(98)-80-GFR/4309,
dated 20.5.82 is enclosed here with for ready reference.
3. In view of the position explained above, it is,
therefore, requested that pension liability in respect of Sh.
Baldev Singh Dhaliwal may be discharged by paying in
lump-sum as a one time payment at the earliest.”
The stand of the State of Delhi, as enumerated in para 7 of
its written statement is that “the services of the petitioner can be counted
for pensionery & other benefits if the entries regarding accepting of
resignation on technical ground and relieving orders to join Punjab
Government to take up new assignment are available in the Service
Book of the petitioner”.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
Annexure P-9, according to which the petitioner was relieved by the
Delhi Administration for joining his services with Punjab Education
Department.
In view of the aforementioned facts, it is clear that the
services rendered by the petitioner from 20.1.1965 to 21.3.1972 are
liable to be counted for the purpose of pensionery benefits, pay
CWP No.2582 of 2004 4
protection, pension and all other service benefits.
In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion
that as the petitioner has retired as Principal from the service of the
Education Department, State of Punjab, therefore, it is the respondent
No.2 who is responsible for revising the pension of the petitioner and
making the payment of the same.
Resultantly, we direct respondent No.2 to revise the
pension of the petitioner by counting his services rendered by him from
20.1.1965 upto 21.3.1972 and paying him the revised pensionery
benefits with all consequential benefits. In case the respondent No.2 is
to get reimbursement for certain portion of the pensionery benefits from
respondent No.3, they may raise claim for the same from respondent
No.3, who shall make the payment in accordance with law expeditiously
to respondent No.2.
The writ petition is disposed of.
(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)
JUDGE
(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
October 30, 2008
‘rajpal’