Allowed

Baldev Singh Dhaliwal v. Union of India and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC30 Oct 2008CWP/2582/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition wherein the High Court, Punjab & Haryana, directed the State of Punjab to count the petitioner's service with the Delhi Administration toward his pension, allowing revised pensionary benefits.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 directed to revise petitioner's pension by counting service from 20.1.1965 to 21.3.1972 and pay revised benefits.

Baldev Singh Dhaliwal Vs Union of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

CWP No.2582 of 2004 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

CWP No.2582 of 2004 Date of decision: 30.10.2008

¶4

Baldev Singh Dhaliwal

¶5

..Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union of India and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

¶10

Present: Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 & 3. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab for respondent No.2.

¶11

Ashutosh Mohunta, J. (oral)

¶12

The petitioner was appointed as a Language Teacher (Punjabi) by the Director of Education (Administration II Branch), Delhi and joined on 20.1.1965. He was confirmed on the said post by the Delhi Administration vide office order No.264 dated 15.2.1971. The petitioner worked with Delhi Administration upto 21.3.1972. While in service, the petitioner applied through proper channel for the post of S.S. Master in the Education Department in the State of Punjab. He was selected as S.S. Master. On selection, the services of the petitioner was transferred to the Education Department Punjab and he continued to serve with the State of Punjab till his superannuation on 31.5.1996. The petitioner retired as a Principal of Government Senior Secondary School, Gharuan, District Ropar.

¶13

The petitioner has prayed that the services rendered by him from 20.1.1965 to 21.3.1972 with the Directorate of Education

¶14

CWP No.2582 of 2004 2

¶15

(Administration II Branch), Delhi be counted for the purpose of pay protection, other service benefits and pensionary benefits.

¶16

Separate replies have been filed on behalf of State of Punjab as well as Directorate of Education (Administration II Branch), Delhi.

¶17

Learned counsel for the State of Punjab has relied upon letter No.2/12/97-1Edu.4/117 dated 14.1.2003 (Annexure R-1) from the Secretary School Education, Punjab to the Directorate of Education (Administration II Branch), Delhi, which which reads as under:-

¶18

“I am directed to invite a reference to this Government Letter No.2/12/97-1 Edu.IV/995 dated 1.4.1999 on the subject noted above and to say that Sh. Baldev Singh Dhaliwal was appointed as Language teacher (Punjabi) by Directorate of Education, Delhi vide office order No.Ad-II(3) Lang/Punjabi/16/64 dated 16.1.65 (Copy enclose). His services were permanently transferred to the Directorate of Public Instructions, Punjab (Education Department) w.e.f. 21.3.1972 vide letter No.School/RAR/ 71-72, Dated 21.3.1972 (copy enclosed). Thus Sh. Dhaliwal worked as Language teacher under the Directorate of Education, New Delhi from 20.1.1965 to 21.3.1972 later on, his General provident Fund amounting to Rs.2235 was transferred to the Directorate of Public Instructions, Punjab, Chandigarh vide Controller of Accounts letter No.PFA-VI4/P/441/364-65, dated 11.7.1977 (copy enclosed). 2. Sh. Dhaliwal has retired on 31.5.1996 on attaining the age of superannuation. He has represented to this State Government for the grant of pensionery benefits in respect of service rendered by him in your Directorate from

¶19

CWP No.2582 of 2004 3

¶20

20.1.1965 to 21.3.1972. It has since been decided in consultation with the Government of India that proportionate pensionery liability in respect of temporary service rendered under the Central Government/State Government to the extent such service would have qualified for grant of pension under the rules of the respective Government, will be shared by the Govt. concerned on a service-share basis, so that the Govt. employees are allowed the benefit of counting their qualifying service. A copy of Punjab Government Instructions No.16(98)-80-GFR/4309, dated 20.5.82 is enclosed here with for ready reference.

¶21

In view of the position explained above, it is, therefore, requested that pension liability in respect of Sh. Baldev Singh Dhaliwal may be discharged by paying in lump-sum as a one time payment at the earliest.”

¶22

The stand of the State of Delhi, as enumerated in para 7 of its written statement is that “the services of the petitioner can be counted for pensionery & other benefits if the entries regarding accepting of resignation on technical ground and relieving orders to join Punjab Government to take up new assignment are available in the Service Book of the petitioner”.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Annexure P-9, according to which the petitioner was relieved by the Delhi Administration for joining his services with Punjab Education Department.

¶24

In view of the aforementioned facts, it is clear that the services rendered by the petitioner from 20.1.1965 to 21.3.1972 are liable to be counted for the purpose of pensionery benefits, pay

¶25

CWP No.2582 of 2004 4

¶26

protection, pension and all other service benefits.

¶27

In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that as the petitioner has retired as Principal from the service of the Education Department, State of Punjab, therefore, it is the respondent No.2 who is responsible for revising the pension of the petitioner and making the payment of the same.

¶28

Resultantly, we direct respondent No.2 to revise the pension of the petitioner by counting his services rendered by him from 20.1.1965 upto 21.3.1972 and paying him the revised pensionery benefits with all consequential benefits. In case the respondent No.2 is to get reimbursement for certain portion of the pensionery benefits from respondent No.3, they may raise claim for the same from respondent No.3, who shall make the payment in accordance with law expeditiously to respondent No.2.

¶29

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶30

(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE

¶31

(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE

¶32

October 30, 2008 'rajpal'

Baldev Singh Dhaliwal v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baldev Singh Dhaliwal v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanta Mehta Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Bahadur Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Dalip Singh Vs State of Punjab etc.

Paramjit Singh Vs Bhai Mani Singh Charitable Trust and Ors.

Gulzar Singh Sodhi Vs State of Punjab and Others

Amarjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.