In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CWP No. 19101 of 2006
Date of decision:29.7.2008
Salwinder Singh
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Mohd.Salim, Advocate,
for Mr.Rakesh Kumar, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab,
for the respondents.
****
JUDGMENT
M.M.KUMAR, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the
orders dated 22.1.2004 and 8.12.2004 (Annexures P-4 and P-7
respectively), whereby his claim for grant of pension has been
declined. He has been retired on 31.1.2001 after having rendered
service as Welfare Worker in the office of District Sainik Welfare,
Fatehgarh Sahib. It is the conceded position that the petitioner has
rendered 9 years, 11 months and 21 days service and there is a
dispute as to whether he could be deemed to have rendered 10
years service as per the Civil Service Rules and the instructions
dated 17.8.1983 and 31.12.1997. Rule 6.1 of the Civil Service Rules
along with the aforementioned instructions came up for consideration
CWP No. 19101 of 2006 -2-
before this Court in CWP No.8012 of 2003. The petition was allowed
on 8.7.2004 by a Division Bench of this Court (P-11). In that case
also the petitioner had rendered less than 10 years service. The
Division Bench has cited the following para of instructions dated
31.12.1997:-
“I am directed to say that in accordance with the existing
provisions of Rule 6.1 of Punjab Civil Service Rules,
Volume II, fraction of a year equal to six months and
above is treated as a completed six, monthly period for
the purpose of calculating of pension of Government
employee. The Governor of Punjab is now pleased to
decide that in calculating the length of qualifying service
for the purpose of pension, a fraction of a year equal to
three months and above shall be treated as a completed
one half year and reckoned as qualifying service for
determining the amount of pension.”
The Division Bench interpreted the instructions and held
that 3 months period was to be taken as a fraction for completed
one half years, whereas, earlier six months period was taken as a
fraction of one year. Therefore, the benefit of instructions was
extended to the employee, who had rendered 9 years 9 months 17
days of service.
In the present case, the petitioner has rendered 9 years
11 months and 21 days of service and it is claimed that the matter is
squarely covered by the Division Bench’s judgment rendered in CWP
No.8012 of 2003.
When the matter came up for consideration on 28.7.2008,
CWP No. 19101 of 2006 -3-
learned State counsel has sought time to seek instructions as to
whether the Division Bench’s judgment, rendered in CWP No.8012 of
2003 (Amrik Singh vs. State of Punjab) was still holding field or
whether it was challenged before Hon’ble the Supreme Court. At the
resumed hearing, learned State counsel has placed on record a copy
of the order dated 14.3.2005 (Mark ‘A’) showing that the SLP has
been dismissed. Learned State counsel has also made some efforts
to persuade us to take a view different than the one taken by the
Division Bench by citing heading of Chapter 6 of the Civil Services
Rules. However, the view taken by the Division Bench is binding on
us and even otherwise there is no reason for us to differ the Division
Bench. The instructions dated 31.12.1997 have been issued in
pursuance to Rule 6.1 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules and
interpreted by adopting principle of beneficial construction.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner
shall be deemed to have rendered 10 years qualifying service. Let
his pension and pensionary benefits now be calculated and be paid
to him within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order. In view of some controversy concerning
interpretation of Rules we refrain from passing an order awarding
any cost or interest to the petitioner.
(M.M.KUMAR)
JUDGE
(SABINA)
JUDGE
July 29, 2008
anita