IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Writ Petition No. 15602 of 2007
DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 31, 2009
KARNAIL SINGH
....... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
.... RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab.
AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)
This order shall deal with three petitions viz. CWP 15602 of
2007 (Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab and others), CWP 15388 of 2007
(Teja Singh v. State of Punjab and others) and CWP 15600 of 2007
(Subhash Kumar v. State of Punjab and others), as common questions of
fact and law are involved.
For reference to record, CWP 15602 of 2007 (Karnail Singh v.
State of Punjab and others) is being taken up.
Civil Writ Petition No. 15602 of 2007 2
This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of
India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari quashing the action of the respondents in not treating the
petitioner as a regular Provincial Reserve (P.R.) Chowkidar, though the
petitioner retired after rendering about 22 years of service. The petitioner
has not been granted the benefit of gratuity, pension and other pensionary
benefits, which action of the respondents is arbitrary and unconstitutional,
being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
It has been pleaded that the petitioner was given appointment
as Provincial Reserve Chowkidar on 12.1.1983, through Employment
Exchange. After putting in about 22 years of service, the petitioner
superannuated on 30.9.2006. When the petitioner was not given the
pensionary benefits, the petitioner approached the respondents by way of
making a representation and also otherwise. The petitioner has been
orally informed that the petitioner, being a temporary employee, cannot be
given pensionary benefits. It has been pleaded that similarly situated
persons have been given pensionary benefits.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the case of the
petitioner is covered by the judgments rendered in CWP No.7780 of 2004
(Rakha Singh v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 27.1.2005, and
CWP No.16786 of 2001 (Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab) decided on
5.12.2002. The petitions were allowed by this Court. The State of Punjab
filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,
which was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further informed the
Civil Writ Petition No. 15602 of 2007 3
Court that considering the legal position, even the respondent-State has
issued instructions on 17.4.2009 (Annexure P-8).
Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that similar
issue was considered by this very Bench, while dealing with CWP 15397
of 2007 (Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab and others) decided on
22.7.2009.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that,
indeed, the Special Leave Petition filed by the respondent-State has been
dismissed. In view of the settled law, the instructions (Annexure P-8)
have been issued by the respondents under which the petitioner is entitled
to the relief claimed in the petition.
In view of the facts and circumstances noticed above, I am of
the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the pensionary benefits, the
petitioner having served the respondents for about 22 years.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
The respondents are directed to give pensionary benefits to
the petitioner within 3 months of receipt of certified copy of the order.
August 31, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?