IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.1644 of 2009
Date of Decision: September 15, 2009
Jit Singh
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab & Others
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: - None for the petitioner.
Mr. B.S.
Chahal, Deputy Advocate
General, Punjab, for the
respondents.
. . .
AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
This petition has been filed under
Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents to release
retiral benefits to the petitioner.
It has been pleaded that the
petitioner joined service of respondents in
Department of Food & Supplies, Punjab as Watchman.
The name of the petitioner was sponsored by
Employment Exchance and therefore, employment itself
was regular although the appointment was shown as
temporary. Seniority list was also drawn. The
petitioner continued to serve the respondents till
CWP No.1644 of 2009 [2]
attaining the age of 60 years and was retired w.e.f.
31.12.2006. Retiral benefits were not paid to the
petitioner and other similarly situated persons.
One Nazar Singh filed Civil Writ Petition
No.18567 of 2004 which was disposed of with direction to
decide his representation. Relief was granted by the
respondents. It has further been pleaded that
services of the persons shown junior to the
petitioner in seniority list, were regularised. It
is in this backdrop of facts that the petitioner
claims regularisation and retiral benefits.
It has further been pleaded that the
petitioner submitted a representation dated 4.5.2005
for regularisation of services. Since no action was
taken, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No.15683 of
2005. The petition was disposed of on 30.9.2005 with
direction to the respondents to decide the
representation within three months. Direction was
not complied with, whereupon the petitioner was
constrained on filing Contempt of Court Petition No.318 of 2006.
During the pendency of the contempt petition, order
dated 9.1.2006 was passed whereby representation of
the petitioner was rejected while saying that posts
were not available. Be that as it may, the
petitioner challenged the said order by way of
filing Civil Writ Petition No.16184 of 2006 which was admitted
and is pending. The petitioner, in the meanwhile,
retired on 31.12.2006, however, without payment of
retiral benefits.
CWP No.1644 of 2009 [3]
It has been pleaded that the case of
the petitioner would be covered by similar other
cases including Civil Writ Petition No.7780 of 2004 (Rakha Singh vs.
State of Punjab & Others) decided on 27.1.2005 and Civil Writ
Petition No.16786 of 2001 (Baldev Singh vs. State of Punjab) decided
on 5.12.2002.
Learned counsel for the respondents
admits that cases of persons similarly situated have
been allowed. It has also been brought out that
Instructions dated 17.4.2009 have been issued by the
respondent-Department whereunder relief has been
given to persons such as the petitioner. It has
further been brought out by the learned counsel for
the respondents that the State of Punjab had filed a
Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India which was dismissed.
Learned counsel has also drawn the
attention of the Court towards a later order
passed by this Court passed on 22.7.2009 while
dealing with Civil Writ Petition No.15397 of 2007 titled
`Amrik Singh vs. State of Punjab & Others’.
In Amrik Singh’s case (supra), the
following has been held:-
“I have considered the issue.
Instructions/decision No.AB7(806)-2009/950 dated
17.4.2009 (Annexure P-8) has been issued by the office of
Director, Food Civil Supplies and Public Distribution, Punjab,
to all District Food and Supplies Controllers in the State of
Punjab. The instructions/decision (Annexure P-8) reads as
under:-
“This is in reference to head office memo
No.AB6(650)-2007/395 dated 5.3.2007 on the above
subject.
CWP No.1644 of 2009 [4]
2. Through the letter under reference it was written to
you that the temporary chowkidars are not entitled to
pensionary benefits. As such they should not be given
pensionary benefits and those to whom such benefits
have been released after their retirement, necessary
action be initiated to recover the same back.
3 The said instructions were challenged by the retired
chowkidars before Hon’ble high court and a number of
petitions were filed out of which approximately eleven
cases were decided in their favour and some of the
petitions are still pending in the Hon’ble High Court
which are also likely to be decided in their favour. The
Department had filed an appeal before Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rakha Singh against the
decision of Hon’ble High court, which has also been
decided in favour of Department as under:-
“Regarding grant of pensionary benefits to
temporary chowkidars, they be treated at par with
regular employees and pensionary,
superannuation compensation, invalid pension
and DCRG are payable to them.”
4. In this context the Department had also engaged a
counsel of High Court for getting his opinion who has
also opined through his legal opinion dated 5.3.2009
that the decision in the case of Rakha Singh Chowkidar
of Hon’ble Supreme Court is applicable to all the
temporary chowkidars and there is no occasion to
challenge the decisions rendered by Hon’ble High Court
before Hon’ble Supreme Court in their cases.
5. Upon consideration of whole issue it has been
decided that head office memo No.AB6(650)-2007/395
dated 5.3.2007 is not legally correct and hence the same
is hereby withdrawn.
6. You are hereby instructed to restore the pensionary
benefits given to the retired chowkidars and in case any
recovery etc. has been effected from these chowkidars,
the same may also be restored to them so that the
compliance of decision of Hon’ble High court could be
made.”
I have also taken note of the fact that similar issue was
raised before this court wherein, while referring to the earlier
decisions of this Court and instructions/decision extracted
above, the claim of petitioner therein was allowed while
dealing with CWP 14418 of 2008 (Mela Singh v. State of
Punjab and others) decided on 11.5.2009.
Having considered the facts and circumstances noticed
above, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is
entitled to the benefit, he having served the respondents for 22
years.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
The respondents are directed to give pensionary benefits
to the petitioner. The pensionary benefits be released to the
petitioner within 3 months of receipt of certified copy of this
order.”
CWP No.1644 of 2009 [5]
Considering the stand of the
respondents to the effect that the issue is
covered by judgment dated 22.7.2009 rendered in
Amrik Singh’s case (supra), this petition is allowed in
the same terms as in Civil Writ Petition No.15397 of 2007
titled `Amrik Singh vs. State of Punjab & Others’, portion of
which has been extracted above.
(AJAI LAMBA)
September 15, 2009 JUDGE
Avin
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?