High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rachhita Kumari vs State Of Haryana And Others on 4 September, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rachhita Kumari vs State Of Haryana And Others on 4 September, 2009
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10322 OF 2008                               :{ 1 }:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH



                    DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 04, 2009



Rachhita Kumari

                                                             .....Petitioner

                                         VERSUS



State of Haryana and others

                                                              ....Respondents



CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?



PRESENT:             Mr. J. S. Chahal, Advocate,
                     for the petitioner.

                     Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana,
                     for the State.

                     Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate,
                     for respondent No.4.

                    Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate,
                    for respondent No.5.

                                  ****

RANJIT SINGH, J.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuance of a

direction to the respondents to count his service from 30.10.1967 to
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10322 OF 2008 :{ 2 }:

11.10.1986, which she had rendered in a Government aided school,

as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral

benefits.

The petitioner was appointed as JBT Teacher in

Saraswati Vidya Mandir School, Jagadhri. While working there, she

applied for the post of JBT teacher in Haryana Government, where

she was selected and appointed as such on six months basis vide

order dated 10.10.1986. Her services were thereafter regularised

w.e.f. 1.1.1991 vide order dated 10.4.1991. The petitioner made a

representation on 13.9.2005 with a request to count her previous

service rendered in the abovesaid private aided school for the

purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. However, no action

was taken on the said representation. In the meantime, on

31.3.2006, the petitioner retired from service on superannuation.

Another representation made by her on 1.7.2007, also met the same

fate. Reference is also made to the Rules known as Haryana Aided

Schools (Pension and Contributory Provident Fund) Rules, 1999 and

the instructions dated 7.1.2002 issued by the Haryana Government.

As per these instructions, the previous service of the employee of

State Government or of an autonomous body is to be counted for the

purpose of pension etc. However, when the benefit of this service

rendered by the petitioner in private aided school was not given to

her, she has filed this writ petition, pleading that the controversy

already stands concluded by various decisions of this Court.

After issuance of notice of motion, various opportunities

were given to respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 but no reply has been

filed. Respondent No.4-Provident Fund Commissioner has filed short
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10322 OF 2008 :{ 3 }:

reply, stating therein that no relief is claimed against him.

The issue raised in the abovesaid writ petition already

stands adjudicated by this Court in a decision rendered in various

writ petitions, including Civil Writ Petition No.16817 of 2007 (Vijay

Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others), decided on July 22, 2009.

Relying upon the ratio laid down in the cases of Harnandan Singh

Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2007 (2) RSJ 437 and Charan

Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2006 (6) SLR 624, decided

by two different Division Benches of this Court and a case titled

Union of India and others Vs. Jawahar Lal Sharma, 2003(3) RSJ

672, the Court has directed the respondents to count the entire

service rendered by the petitioners in a privately managed school

and in the Government school for the purpose of pension and retiral

benefits. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Chander Sain Vs. State of Haryana

and others, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 972. In all these cases, the

Court has held that the service rendered in the aided school was

required to be counted for the purpose of pension and retiral

benefits.

The issues raised in the instant petition is, thus, covered

by the ratio of law laid down in the abovesaid cases. A service

rendered in a private school or an aided post, which is receiving

grant-in-aid, is also made pensionable and as such, the same is

required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of pension

and retiral benefits.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and direction is

hereby issued to the respondents to treat the service of the petitioner
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10322 OF 2008 :{ 4 }:

from 30.10.1967 to 11.10.1986 as a qualifying service for the

purpose of pensionary and retiral benefits.

September 04, 2009                       ( RANJIT SINGH )
khurmi                                        JUDGE