Allowed

Satpal Singh Brar & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Aug 2010CWP/5571/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition holding that service rendered by petitioners in Government aided privately managed schools sanctioned under the Grant-in-Aid Scheme is countable towards qualifying service for pension, subject to verifying specific conditions and tenure rules.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to count service in Government Aided Schools for pension purpose within one year, subject to verification and compliance with Pension Scheme 1992.

Satpal Singh Brar & Ors. Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.5571 of 1992 Date of Decision: August 10, 2010

¶3

Satpal Singh Brar & Others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents.

.....PETITIONER(S)

. . .

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)

CWP No.5571 of 1992 [2]

¶8

This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to count the service rendered by the petitioners in Government aided privately managed schools before taking over the services of the petitioners by the State Government, for calculating their pension and other pensionary benefits. The petitioners also claim benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that this Court has already dealt with the issue(s) raised in this petition while dealing with Civil Writ Petition No.14238 of 1991 titled ` Sukhdev Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Others ’ decided on 10.3.2010, and therefore the petitioners are entitled to the same relief as granted by this Court in the said case.

¶10

Learned counsel for the respondentState contends that he would have no objection if the case is decided in terms of judgment rendered by this Court in Sukhdev Singh’s case (supra) .

¶11

I have considered the contentions.

¶12

In Sukhdev Singh’s case (supra) , the

¶13

following issue was framed for consideration:-

¶14

CWP No.5571 of 1992 [3]

¶15

“The issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the service rendered by a Teacher/Master in a Government Aided Privately Managed School, is countable towards the pensionary benefits on his retirement from the Government service?”

¶16

¶17

Operative part of the judgment

¶18

reads as under:-

¶19

“For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to count the services rendered by the petitioners in Government Aided Privately Managed Schools against the posts duly sanctioned under the Grant-in-Aid Scheme, towards their `qualifying service' for pension subject to , however, following conditions:-

¶20

1. The respondents shall call upon the petitioners to furnish their exact service particulars in respect of the service rendered by them in the Government Aided Privately Managed Schools. Such an information shall be called within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order and the petitioners shall furnish the same within one month thereafter;

¶21

1. The respondents shall also call upon the records of the Government Aided Privately Managed Schools and verify as to whether or not the petitioners have served in such Government Aided Schools against the posts duly sanctioned;

¶22

1. The respondents shall be at liberty to ascertain as to whether or not the petitioners had resigned from the Government Aided Privately Managed Schools to enable them to join the Government service;

¶23

1. The insignificant or small break between the two services shall be condoned in terms of Rule 7.5 (3) of CSR (Volume-I);

¶24

1. The benefit of service rendered in Government Aided Privately Managed Schools shall be extended strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in `the Pension Scheme 1992';

¶25

1. If some of the petitioners who are still in service are found to be not entitled to the benefit of their previous service in Government Aided Schools, necessary speaking orders to this effect shall be passed by the respondents;

¶26

CWP No.5571 of 1992 [4]

¶27

1. This order shall not be construed to mean acceptance of claim of the petitioners to count the service rendered by them in Government Aided Privately Managed Schools, towards their seniority, proficiency step-up or ACP etc. as the claim in the present writ petitions is confined qua pensionary benefits only;

¶28

1. The entire exercise including the payment of consequential arrears shall be completed as early as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.”

¶29

Considering that the petitioners have raised the same issue as dealt with by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.14238 of 1991 titled ` Sukhdev Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Others ’ decided on 10.3.2010 (operative part whereof has been extracted above), this petition is allowed in the same terms.

¶30

(AJAI LAMBA)

¶31

August 10, 2010 JUDGE avin

¶32

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶33

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Satpal Singh Brar & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satpal Singh Brar & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

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

Gurpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Tara Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gurdev Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Joginder Singh Aulkakh an Ors. Vs State of Punjab an Ors.

Jagdish Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Monika Rani Vs State of Punjab and Ors.