Dismissed

State of Punjab and Ors. v. Parkash Kaur

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Aug 2010LPA/615/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment condones a delay in filing a Letter Patent Appeal arising from a writ petition concerning pension entitlement. The court relied on prior precedents (Charan Singh and Harmandan Singh) regarding pension benefits for temporary teachers in private aided schools and dismissed the appeal, directing payment of arrears.

What did the court decide?

Direction to concerned authorities to pay arrears of pension within two months.

State of Punjab and Ors. Vs Parkash… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

C.M.No.1771 of 2010 & L.P.A.No. 615 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

C.M.No.1771 of 2010 & L.P.A.No. 615 of 2010 Date of Decision:- 19.8.2010

¶5

State of Punjab and others Appellants

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Parkash Kaur Respondent

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR. HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI.

¶9

Present: Mr.Suvir Sehgal, Addl. Advocate General Punjab, for the appellants.

¶10

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶11

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

¶12

RITU BAHRI,J.

¶13

C.M.No.1771 of 2010

¶14

Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the

¶15

application, delay of 16 days in filing the Letter Patent Appeal is hereby condoned.

¶16

Civil Miscellaneous Application is disposed of.

¶17

L.P.A.No. 615 of 2010

¶18

The petitioner in the writ petition prays for a

¶19

direction to the respondents to grant her pension as admissible to her including the arrears of pension along with

¶20

C.M.No.1771 of 2010 & L.P.A.No. 615 of 2010

¶21

¶22

interest. The petitioner further prays for counting her service period rendered in a Privately Managed Aided School for the purpose of pensionary benefit.

¶23

The petitioner was appointed temporary Peon in Bharat High School, Tuto Mazara, District Hoshiarpur on 7.9.1981 for a period of one year on compassionate ground and her services were regularized vide order dated 18.4.1983 w.e.f. 7.9.1981. Right from the date of appointment, the petitioner had been continuously depositing her contributory provident fund under the notification dated 10.2.1992 under the scheme of “Punjab Privately Managed Recognized Aided Schools Recruitment Benefit Scheme, 1992” ( for short “1992 scheme”). The 1992 scheme has a retrospective effect and had come into force w.e.f. 1987. Under the said scheme, Government of Punjab decided to grant pensionary benefits like pension and gratuity in lieu of the contributory provident fund to the teachers of the Privately Managed Aided School in the State of Punjab.

¶24

This fact has not been denied in the written statement filed by the department.

¶25

On 10.11.1997, the School was taken over by the Government. The benefit of fixation of pay was given to the petitioner for the service rendered by her in the Government Aided School. Consequent upon rendering satisfactory service the petitioner superannuated on 31.3.2005 (vide order dated 11.5.2005 (Annexure P-6)). Benefit of pension

¶26

C.M.No.1771 of 2010 & L.P.A.No. 615 of 2010

¶27

¶28

and the retiral benefits of the petitioner were denied on the ground that her service was less than 10 years and she was not eligible for pension.

¶29

It is pertinent to mention here that some employees of the same School approached this Court challenging the action of the respondents for not granting them retrial and pensionary benefits by way of C.W.P.Nos. 12432 of 2004 and 11018 and 11035 of 2005 which were allowed by this Court. The copy of the order dated 11.7.2006 passed in C.W.P.No. 12432 of 2004 titled Charan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, is attached with this petition as Annexure P-7.

¶30

The facts of the present petition are identical as in Charan Singh's case (supra) and this view has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Harmandan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2007(2) RSJ, 437.

¶31

In view of the above, there is no merit in the Letter Patent Appeal and the same is dismissed. The needful, including payment of arrears of such period, shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

¶32

(M.M. KUMAR ) (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE JUDGE

¶33

19.8.2010 Anoop

¶34

C.M.No.1771 of 2010 & L.P.A.No. 615 of 2010

¶35

State of Punjab and Ors. v. Parkash Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Punjab and Ors. v. Parkash Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Rani & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Surender Chopra & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Manpreet Kaur & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Amritsar Labour Laws Practitioners' Association Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

BSNL and Anr. Vs Raj Kumar and Ors.

BSNL and Anr. Vs Central Administrative Tribunal and Ors.