Date Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab an and others
Case Details
CWP-17486-201 2015 (O&M) 1 UNJAB & HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN T ARH AT CHANDIGARH 280 CWP-17486-2015 (O&M) CWP Date of decision: 13.01.2025 Date Karnail Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab an and others ...Respondents
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN C ***** ***** Mr. Brijesh Nandan, Advocate for the Present : Mr. for the petitioner. AN CHAUDHARY Mr. Satnam Preet Singh, DAG, Punja Mr. S , Punjab. (through hybrid mode) (throu ***** ***** AUDHARY, J. (ORAL) AMAN CHAUDH 1. Prayer made in the present petition Praye rges tition for counting of work-charges for the purpose of ose of pension. 2. This Court vide order dated 19.12.20 This atter 9.12.2022 had adjourned the matter sine die and to be to be listed after decision of LPA-199 ngh 1996-2016 titled as Balbir Singh (since deceased) ed) thr. his Lrs vs. Bhakra Bea and a Beas Management Board and others, stands de ds decided vide judgment dated 18.0 tate d 18.09.2024, which learned State counsel despite h pite his best efforts, has not been a tual been able to controvert the factual position and draw draw out any distinctive aspects in th nt or the aforementioned judgment or cite any contrary l trary law, relevant extract whereof rea of reads thus:- “18. Hon'ble the Supreme Cou versus State of Uttar Prades while considering the validity Benefit Rules, 1961 and Regu Regulation of UP which were p e Court in the case of Prem Singh ingh CT, radesh and others, 2019(4) SCT, ent lidity of Rule 3(8) of UP Retirement Regulations 370 of Civil Services ices s in were pari materia to the Rules as in ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.14 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17486-201 2015 (O&M) 2 retrenched sion 's case (supra) affirmed its decision question in Kesar Singh's case ngh Reliance by the State of UP on on in the case of Narata Singh Re Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaswant ant the earlier decision of the Hon' tion ated while holding that the question Singh's (supra) was negated w aswant Singh was different. involved in the case of Jaswant he course of hearing was informed med 19. This Court during the cou and decisions have attained finality and that all the 19 above said decis yees as been afforded to the employees the benefit in question has bee t Board. therein by the respondent Boar ned is stage that though it is mentioned 20. It is to be noted at this stag nts filed on behalf of BBMB before fore in the 20 written statements fil employee had voluntarily resigned ned the writ Court that the emplo eed iable that their services were indeed from service, it is undeniable t ourt of Balbir Singh the Labour Court retrenched. In the case of Ba 8 itself is testimony to the same. me. award dated 04.09.2008 itsel not learned counsel for BBMB did not Moreover, in all faimess, learn hed employees were indeed retrenched deny that services of the empl Link project/Beas Construction tion from the Beas Satluj Link h an ect. The question of right of such an Board/Bhakra Dam Project. Th ere the Boards which were from from employee ssors of BBMB and the of such such admittedly the predecessors arge for counting of their work-charge employees' entitlement for co ered essor Boards has been considered service with the predecessor s as vour in the various judgments as and decided in their favour g paras. discussed in the foregoing para hile matrix, learned Single Judge while 21. In the given factual matrix vide order dated 17.08.2016, clearly arly deciding CWP-57-2012 vide o matter at hand is squarely covered ered erred in holding that the matte ant 'ble the Supreme Court in Jaswant by the judgment of Hon'ble th is also no merit in the argument ent Singh's case (supra). There is lay on the part of employees in s in that there has been delay o hile rt. Leamed Single Bench while this Court. Le approaching 016, ons vide orders dated 17.08.2016, deciding the writ petitions vi r 08.08.2023 has clearly erred while 03.02.2020 and thereafter 08.08 tual sions. Keeping in view the factual rendering the said decisions. 020 ions dated 17.08.2016, 03.02.2020 matrix as above, decisions d ustainable. and 08.08.2023 are not sustaina as been addressed. 22. No other argument has been facts and circumstances as above, ove, 23. Keeping in view the facts lowed, impugned decisions dated ated all the appeals are allowed, side. and 08.08.2023 are set aside. 17.08.2016, 03.02.2020 and writ filed by appellants/writ etitions Consequently, writ petition o the extent that respondent Board is rd is petitioners are allowed to the e hem e of appellants rendered by them directed to count service of ject, f Punjab with Bhakra Dam Project, under the Government of Punj d, Beas Satluj Link Board etc. for . for Beas Construction Board, Bea s of ervice towards pension. Arrears of calculating qualifying service ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.14 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17486-201 2015 (O&M) 3 pension as payable to the ap within a period of three mon copy of this decision. No int released as the matter has decided now. However, in cas released within three months f of this order, appellants shall rate of 6% per annum from deposit of the amount.” hem the appellants be released to them e months from receipt of certified ified No interest thereon is liable to be be and has been adjudicated upon and in case, amount in question is not not onths from receipt of certified copy opy the shall be entitled to interest at the tual from the date of order till actual 3. In wake of the above, the present peti In wa
Decision
of nt petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment pass assed in Balbir Singh (supra). (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 13.01.2025 ashok Whether speaking Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.14 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document