The High Court
Case Details
(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:6) (cid:1) (cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:1) UNJAB & HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH GARH CHANDIGARH 259 r Kaur Jatinder Kaur State of Punja f Punjab CWP-8848-2021 (O & M) CWP Date of decision: 27.01.2025 Date o ....Petitioner Versus ...Respondent CORAM: H
Legal Reasoning
M: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMA AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : ocate, Mr. Akash Vashisth, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, P AG, Punjab. AMAN CHA CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. Prayer made in the present petit t petition is for quashing the order dated 22.01.2 2.01.2021, Annexure P-23, vide whic e which extension of service period from 60 to 62 0 to 62 years was declined. 2. The petitioner, a 70% physica hysically handicapped clerk, was retired at the at the age of 58 years on 31.07.201 7.2012, and was granted 02 years extension up ion upto the age of 60 years, vid rs, vide order dated 31.03.2015, Annexure P ure P-13. He in terms of the No e Notification dated 08.10.2012, Annexure P ure P-10, issued by the State Go te Government and letter dated 20.09.2013, 013, Annexure P-11, mandating the ng the same, was entitled for two years more e ore extension upto the age of 62, w 62, which has been declined, vide impugned ord ned order, primarily on the ground tha nd that it was applicable to those in PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.31 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:6) (cid:1) service. In th . In this regard, pointed reference is m ce is made to the order, Annexure P-22, whereb whereby one Sh. Balbir Singh Kahlo Kahlon, Superintendent, who was also physical ysically handicapped and retired on 3 d on 31.01.2015 upon attaining the age of 60 yea 60 years, was held eligible to get all s et all service benefits and extension in service for ice for two years (1+1) w.e.f. 01.02.20 .02.2015 to 31.01.2017. 3. The plea that has been taken in ken in the written statement for not granting the s g the same relief to the petitioner as to er as to the aforesaid person, is that the writ petit it petition filed by him was decided af ided after the petitioner had retired, is completely pletely fallacious. 4. Learned counsel submits that s that the issue involved in the present petiti t petition has been decided by this Co his Court in Kamaljit vs. State of Punjab and and Others, CWP-6287-2018, on 8, on 25.04.2022 against which there was no as no LPA filed, which learned State d State counsel despite best efforts has been una en unable to controvert regards the fa the factual position and draw out any distincti istinctive aspects in the aforementio mentioned judgment or cite any contrary law, y law, relevant extract whereof reads t reads thus:- “I have heard learned counsel f through the record with their a first prayer of the petitioner for daily wage service rendered 01.01.1990 till 23.01.2001, the the petitioner is not in disput petitioner is entitled for countin in view the provisions of the Pu Rule 3.17, which Rule is as unde 3.17. If an employee was holdin post on the date of his ret officiating service under the S without interruption by confirm nsel for the parties and have gone their able assistance. As far as the er for taking into consideration the ndered by the petitioner from 1, the said service at the hands of dispute. Once, that being so, the ounting of the said service keeping the Punjab Civil Service Rules i.e. nder:- holding substantively a permanent is retirement, his temporary or the State Government, followed onfirmation in the same or another PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.31 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:6) (cid:1) (cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:1) in the such service these rules, temporary l as qualifying service except in rary or officiating ent; (ii) Omitted. ely temporary Central Government transferred manently to Punjab term to s subject ” includes the temporary service under pensionary liability in respect of such ength of service. rendered by an employee as work- ice paid from contingencies, shall e: Provided that– (i) such service is yment; ion in the two or more spells of ns are condonable under rule 4.23; post, shall count in full as q respect of : – (i) periods of nonpensionable establishment; ( (iii) Omitted. tral Government employee who is Note 1.–In case of a Central G to the Punjab Government and permanently transferred to th rules, under rule 1.1 (b) of these becomes subject to these rules, ous temporary/officiating service” rules, the term “continuous te rendered under Central ervice service include shall Government. Note 2.–In case of a purely tem employee who is permanen Government and becomes sub “continuous temporary service” incl the Central Government. The pensio cases shall be allocated on the length Note 3.–The entire service rende charged as also the service pa count as qualifying service: Prov followed by regular employment (ii) there is no interruption in service, or the interruptions are and (iii) such service must be a full a full-time job. Note 4. The entire adhoc service rendered by a Go y a Government employee may be counted as qualifying service: Pr ice: Provided that– (i) such service is followed by re d by regular employment; (ii) there is no interruption in the in the two or more spells of adhoc egular service, or the interruptions service, and adhoc and regular 4.23; are condonable under rule 4.23; a full-time job; (iii) such service must be a full service should have been made (iv) recruitment to such servi ent Exchange or by open through advertisement; s adhoc employee must have been (v) the service rendered as adho acancy; and against a regular post or vacancy for academic eligibility, e for (vi) and age, at the time of adhoc qualifications, experience and been fulfilled.” appointment, should have been f ve Rule would show that the daily A bare perusal of the above Ru an employee is to be counted as a wage service rendered by an em se the same is followed by the qualifying service in case the esent case, the service which the regularization. In the present om 01.01.1990 till 23.01.2001 was petitioner had rendered from 01 ce and therefore, the same is liable followed by regular service and the Employment conditions like the PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.31 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:6) (cid:1) (cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:1) to be counted keeping in view (A) of the Punjab Civil Service R Not only this, by interpreting R of this Court while deciding Punjab and others', AIR 1988 P daily wage service followed by taken as a qualifying service fo benefits. Learned counsel for the respon dispute the said proposition o petitioner is entitled for counti 01.01.1990 till 23.01.2001 as computing the pensionary benef With regard to the claim of th service which the petitioner had 01.07.2014 onwards till 31.07.20 to the petitioner on the ground dated 30.10.2015, the employees not entitled for any benefit of th extension. The respondents are i issued by the Government date upon the petitioner. The instru prospective not retrospective which an employee has rendere be governed by the instruction rendering the service on extens respondents has not been provisions/instructions which 30.10.2015 which debars takin rendered on extension from 01 purpose claimed. That being so, taken into account as a qualifyi pensionary benefits. The last claim of the petitioner granting him the additional bene in view the Rule 4.2. (4) of the Volume 2 Chapter IV. The said “4.2. (1) A Government employ post after the twentysixth day eligible to add to his service q pension (but not for any other period not exceeding one-fourth or the actual period by whic recruitment exceeded twenty-fiv years, whichever is less, if the view the provisions of Rule 3.17 rvice Rules. ting Rule 3.17 (A), the Full Bench iding 'Kesar Chand Vs. State of 1988 Punjab 265 has held that the ed by the regular service is to be vice for computing the pensionary respondents has not been able to ition of law. That being so, the counting the period starting from 01 as a qualifying service for benefits. the petitioner for counting the er had rendered on extension from 1.07.2015, the same is being denied round that as per the instructions loyees, who were on extension, are it of the service being rendered on ts are implementing the instructions t dated 30.10.2015 retrospectively instructions dated 30.10.2015 are ctive and therefore, any service endered prior to the said date, is to ructions applicable at the time of extension. Learned counsel for the to point out any been able hich were applicable prior to s taking into account the service om 01.08.2014 till 31.07.2015 for ng so, even the said service is to be ualifying service for computing the tioner in the present petition is for l benefit of 5 years service keeping of the Punjab Civil Service Rules e said Rule is as under:- employee appointed to a service or h day of October, 1960, shall be vice qualifying for superannuation other class of pension), the actual fourth of the length of his service which his age at the time of five years, or a period of five he service or post to which the PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.31 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:6) (cid:1) (cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:1) Government employee is appoin (a) for which post-graduat qualification, or experience in professional fields, is essential; a (b) to which candidates of more are normally recruited: Provide not be admissible to a Gover actual qualifying service at the service is not less than ten yea concession shall be admissible in respect of the said service provision that the service or p benefit of this rule. (2) Omitted. (3) Omitted. (4) A Government employee, w otherwise orthopaedically handi of his entry into Government Se to his service qualifying for sup of five years. (5) A Government employee, dumb or otherwise orthopaedic service and is retired from serv also be eligible to add to superannuation pension, a perio A bare perusal of the above Ru grants the additional benefit orthopedically handicapped pers such. In the present case, the fac orthopedically handicapped and joining the Department has not so, the petitioner is entitled for t of 5 years service as being claim Keeping in view the above, th respect of the above claim is bei entitled for counting of the daily service from 01.01.1990 till 23.0 from 01.08.2014 till 31.07.2015 years should be added to the t petitioner keeping in view the Civil Service Rules. Let the qualifying service of the pet benefits be recalculated and arre within a period of two months appointed is one – raduate specialist research or ce in scientific, technological or ntial; and re than twenty-five years of age rovided that this concession shall Government employee unless his at the time he quits Government n years: Provided further that this ssible only if the recruitment rules ervice or post contain a specific or post is one which carries the yee, who is blind, deaf, dumb or handicapped or widow at the time ent Service, shall be eligible to add or superannuation pension a period loyee, who becomes blind, deaf, paedically handicapped during the m service as a result thereof, shall d to his service qualifying for period of five years.” ve Rule would show that Clause 4 enefit of 5 years service to a d person, who joined the service as e factum that the petitioner is d and was such even at the time of s not being challenged. That being d for the grant of additional benefit claimed by him. the claim of the petitioner, in is being allowed. The petitioner is e daily wage service as a qualifying ill 23.01.2001 as well as the period 7.2015 and period of additional 5 the total service rendered by the w the Rule 4.2 (4) of the Punjab t the respondents recalculate the e petitioner and the pensionary nd arrears of recalculation be done onths from the receipt of copy of PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.31 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:6) (cid:1) (cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:1) this order and the arrears on r petitioner within a period of one The present writ petition is dispo s on recalculation be given to the of one month thereafter. s disposed of in above terms.” 5.
Decision
In view of the above, the petitio petition is disposed of in terms of Kamaljit (su (supra). 27.01.2025 parveen kumar (AMAN CHAUDHARY) Y) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No : Yes / No Whether reportable PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.31 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.