Allowed

Sham Lal Garg v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Apr 2009CWP/3787/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought directions to count his service with the Central Public Works Department towards his pension. The court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondent to pay the calculated contribution for the pre-state service period.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to pay calculated contribution of Rs.59,748/- within three months and revise pension with arrears within two months after receiving amount.

Sham Lal Garg Vs State of Punjab… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

C.W.P. No.3787 of 2006 (O&M)

¶3

DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 18, 2009

Er.Shyam Lal Chugh

.....PETITIONER

Versus

State of Punjab and others

¶8

....RESPONDENT

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

¶10

Present: Mr.H.S. Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. S.S. Gill, D.A.G.,Punjab, for respondent No.1.

¶12

Mr. H.S. Sran, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶13

Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶14

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)

¶15

The petitioner has filed the instant petition for issuing direction to respondent No.2 to count the service rendered by the petitioner under respondent No.3 from 7.4.1969 to 22.1.1972 towards pensionary benefits in pursuance of the Policy of the Government of India dated 31.3.1982 (Annexure P-5), on the basis of which the Punjab Government had issued the Circular/Policy dated 20.5.1982 (Annexure P-6). Respondent No.2 has adopted the said Policy vide order dated 25.11.1985 (Annexure P-7/T).

¶16

Undisputedly, the petitioner served the Central Public Works Department, Government of India from 7.4.1969 to 22.1.1972. Thereafter, through proper channel the petitioner was selected for appointment with

¶17

C.W.P. No.3787 of 2006 (O&M) -2-

¶18

respondent No.2 by way of direct recruitment, and he joined the services as Apprentice Engineer on 24.1.1972. The petitioner retired from the services of respondent No.2 on 31.7.2003 on attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement, respondent No.2 has released the pensionary benefits only with regard to the service rendered by the petitioner with respondent No.2, i.e., from 24.1.1972 to 31.7.2003. His previous service with respondent No.3, i.e., from 7.4.1969 to 22.1.1972 was not taken into account. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the parties have agreed that this case is squarely covered by the decisions rendered by this Court in CWP No.6680 of 2005 decided on May 03, 2007 and CWP No.17652 of 2006 decided on July 23, 2008.

¶20

In view of the statement made by the counsel for the parties, this petition is allowed in the same terms and respondent No.3 is directed to pay its contribution towards service rendered by the petitioner from 7.4.1969 to 22.1.1972 as has been calculated (Rs.59,748/-) by the respondent-Board vide letter dated 11.8.2004 (Annexure P-17). Respondent No.3 is further directed to pay the said amount within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the said amount, respondent No.2 is directed to revise the pension of the petitioner and pay the same along with arrears within a period of two months, thereafter.

¶21

April 18, 2009 vkg

¶22

(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE

Sham Lal Garg v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sham Lal Garg v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S P M Electronics Vs P S E B

Sumitra Devi Vs Uhbvn Ltd. and Ors.

Satbir Singh Vs Registrar, Coop. Societies and Anr.

Harjinder Singh Vs Joint Registrar Coop. Societies Patiala and Ors.

Baldev Singh Vs Pseb and Ors.

Bimla Devi Vs Pseb