SUKHJINDER KAUR SUKHJINDER KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 120 LPA-112-2025 DATE OF DECISION: 29.08.2025 DATE OF DECISION: SUKHJINDER KAUR SUKHJINDER KAUR … Appellant (s) Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ... Respondent(s) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA
Legal Reasoning
Present: Mr. , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate for the petitioner. ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The appellant has challenged the judgment of the Single Bench of this The appellant has challenged the judgment of the Single Bench of this judgment of the Single Bench of this
Decision
whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant seeking Court dated 12.12.2024 whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant seeking whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant seeking Court dated 12.12.2024 prior to that the service which she had rendered in the State of Haryana, prior to that the service which she had rendered in the State of Haryana directions that the service which she had rendered in the State of Haryana be treated as valid service for her joining as a Teacher with Government of Punjab, be treated as valid service for her joining as a Teacher with Government of Punjab her joining as a Teacher with Government of Punjab the purpose of computing the length of service for pensionary benefits the purpose of computing has been service for pensionary benefits, has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant who had Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant who had Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant who had Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant who had had been transferred as a joined as a teacher in the State of Haryana in 2004, had been transferred as a joined as a teacher in the State of Haryana in 2004 joined as a teacher in the State of Haryana in 2004 teacher in the State of Punjab in the year 2007 and teacher in the State of Punjab in the year 2007 as her appointment in the State and as her appointment in the State period of service which she rendered of Punjab was on transfer basis, therefore, the period of service which she rendered period of service which she rendered of Punjab was on transfe in the State of Haryana ought to be counted for seniority and pensionary benefits. in the State of Haryana ought to be counted for seniority and pensionary benefits. in the State of Haryana ought to be counted for seniority and pensionary benefits. in the State of Haryana ought to be counted for seniority and pensionary benefits. He further submits that the appellant was appointed through proper channel by way He further submits that the appellant was appointed through proper channel by way He further submits that the appellant was appointed through proper channel by way He further submits that the appellant was appointed through proper channel by way of transfer after approval from the competent authority in the State of Punjab as of transfer after approval from the competent authorit of transfer after approval from the competent authorit SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.09.02 13:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-112-2025 -2- well as the State of Haryana and therefore, she would be entitled to the benefit of past service. 3. 4. Heard. The appellant, who was working as a teacher in the State of Haryana had been transferred to the State of Punjab vide order dated 03.08.2007. In the order of appointment in the State of Punjab, it is stipulated that she would not claim any benefit of her past service rendered in the State of Haryana for seniority or for pensionary benefits. It was also set out that she would be entitled to the New Pension Scheme dated 12.01.2004. The appellant having accepted the terms and conditions of her appointment, had joined on the post of teacher in the State of Punjab in the year 2007, and has now turned around and preferred a writ petition after 09 years. In somewhat similar circumstances, a Single Bench of this Court in the case of Gurdial Singh Vs. State of Punjab, CWP No.5021 of 2012, decided on 03.05.2019, while rejecting the claim of the petitioner therein for considering the service rendered by him in an aided school in the State of Haryana as qualifying service while computing his pensionary benefits by the State of Punjab, had placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mrs.Ranjit Nahar Vs. State of Punjab, CWP No.7694 of 1998, decided on 02.08.2000 wherein similar claim of the petitioner therein had been rejected. In that case, the petitioner therein, who had worked as a teacher in the Government Middle School, Jamawari, District Hisar and thereafter as a Social Study Mistress in Govt High School, Mandi Dabwali, Haryana, was selected as a Head Mistress with the Government of Punjab in the year 1977. This Court had rejected the claim of Mrs. Ranjit Nahar for computing the service rendered by her with the SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.09.02 13:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-112-2025 -3- Government of Haryana in an aided institution towards qualifying service. Relevant extract of the judgment in Mrs. Ranjit Nahar’s case (supra) is as under:- “As per the averments made in the writ petition the petitioner had joined as a Mistress in Government Middle School, Jamawari, District Hisar, on six months basis. Thereafter on July 15, 1968, she joined as a Social Study Master in Government Girls High School, Mandi Dabwali (Haryana) on regular basis. In January 1977, the Punjab Public Service Commission had invited applications for the post of Head Mistress. The petitioner applied for the said post through proper channel, i.e., Head Mistress Government Girls High School, Mandi Dabwali. The petitioner was selected for the post of Head Mistress and was appointed as such on September 3, 1977. She made a representation on November 15, 1996, copy annexure P-5 that the service rendered by her in the Haryana State Education Department be counted by the State of Punjab for pension and other benefits. Since the representation had not been decided the petitioner filed a writ petition No.16070 of 1997 claiming the aforesaid relief. That writ petition was disposed of on October 24, 1997 directing the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representation. The representation has been rejected vide order dated April 21, 1998, copy annexure P-9. Hence the present writ petition. The primary reliance of the petitioner for getting the benefit of the service in Haryana is on the instructions dated May 20, 1982, copy annexure P-4, issued by the Punjab Government. These are the instructions, which were issued by the Punjab Government in consultation with the Government of India regarding the sharing on reciprocal basis, the proportionate pensionary liability in respect of those temporary employees who have rendered temporary service under the Central Govt./ State Govt. prior to securing posts under the State/ Central Govt. on their own volition in response to advertisement or circulars, including those by the State/ Union Public service Commission and who are eventually confirmed in their new posts. We have perused the circular. This was a bipartite decision between the Punjab Government and the Central Government that in case a temporary Central Government employee ultimately gets a Government job in the Punjab State and is confirmed and retires, then benefit of the previous service rendered in the Central Government may be counted for pensionary benefits and the liability of pension was to be borne proportionately. SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.09.02 13:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-112-2025 -4- This arrangement was vice versa also, i.e., a temporary Punjab State Government employee getting a job in the Central Government. This circular will not apply between the Haryana State and the Punjab State because there is no such agreement or decision between the State of Haryana and the State of Punjab. No rule or regulation has been brought to our notice of the State of Punjab to count the service of a Government employee, who may have rendered service in the State of Haryana. Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, copy annexure P-9 dated April 21, 1998. The writ petition is dismissed." 6. In the afore-noted facts and circumstances especially when the appellant had accepted the terms and conditions of her appointment which stipulated that she would not be entitled to the benefits of her past service, we do not find any manifest illegality in the order of the Single Bench of this Court rejecting her claim. 7. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal, being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed. (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE 29.08.2025 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes / No Yes / No SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.09.02 13:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document