Dismissed

Prtc v. Rajinder Singh Dhaliwal

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Mar 2011LPA/547/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals by PEPSU Road Transport Corporation challenging the Single Judge's order granting pension benefits for military service to respondent employees. The High Court upheld the single judge's view that narrow construction of rules cannot deny rightful military service dues.

What did the court decide?

The appeals were dismissed, and the decision of the learned Single Judge upholding the pension benefit for military service was affirmed.

Prtc Vs Rajinder Singh Dhaliwal — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

LPA No. 545 of 2011 (O&M) & connected appeals

¶3

Date of Decision: March 22, 2011

¶4

PEPSU Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and another

¶5

…Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

Gurdev Singh and another

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

¶10

Present: Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate, for the appellants.

¶11

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

M.M. KUMAR, J.

¶14

The short issue raised in the instant set of three appeals^* filed by the PEPSU Road Transport Corporation-appellant is whether the writ petitioner-respondent(s) are entitled to count the benefit of military service granted to them as qualifying service for the purposes of computation and calculation of their pension.

¶15

The learned Single Judge has noticed that the appellant Corporation itself has granted the benefit of military service to the writ petitioners under the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 (for brevity, 'the Rules'). The aforesaid benefits were released to the writ petitioner-respondent(s) on different dates i.e. (i) to Shri Gurdev Singh on 18.2.1987; (ii) to Shri Rajinder Singh Dhaliwal on 13.11.1981; and (iii) to Shri Gurchet Singh on 22.7.1986. The appellant Corporation switched over from the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme to Pension Scheme by enacting

¶16

LPA No. 545 of 2011 (O&M) & connected appeals

¶17

¶18

the Regulations known as 'PEPSU Road Transport Corporation Employees Pension/Gratuity and General Provident Fund Regulations, 1992 (for brevity, 'the Regulations'). The appellant Corporation has rejected the claim of the writ petitioner-respondent(s) for counting the benefit of military service for the purposes of computation of pension by placing reliance on Regulation 6 of the Regulations, which stipulated that qualifying service is to be determined from the date when an employee had started contributing towards the Contributory Provident Fund. The view of the learned Single Judge is discernible from the following paras of his judgment dated 8.9.2010:

¶19

" A conjoint reading of the Rules and the Regulations lead to an inference that as and when pension is introduced, employee is required to deposit the amount of gratuity and bonus received from the army. Since the employees of the Corporation were paid pension, therefore, petitioner was not bound to deposit gratuity and bonus received earlier from the army authorities. If, at the time of joining the service of the Corporation, the employees of the Corporation were paid pension, petitioner would have deposited the amount of gratuity and bonus received from the army. Petitioner joined the Corporation on 22.4.1977 and was retired by it on 31.1.2002. The Pension Regulations came into operation with effect from 15.6.1992 whereas the military service benefit was granted to the petitioner on 18.2.1987. It was incumbent upon the authorities of the Corporation to issue notice to those employees who had been granted military service benefit to deposit the amount of gratuity and bonus and

¶20

LPA No. 545 of 2011 (O&M) & connected appeals

¶21

¶22

also of contributory provident fund from the day their presumptive date of appointment was fixed.

¶23

The concessions made under the military service rules were not mere formalities. There was sanguine promise made to those, who leaving their families behind, went to the battle-fields to defend the nation. Those who went to answer the clarion call given by the nation, cannot be denied their rightful dues on the basis of narrow construction of the rules. Thus, on the basis of harmonious interpretation of the provisions to grant benefit which is due to those who went to save the nation at the war front, the petitioners Gurdev Singh and Rajinder Singh have been given 5 years and 9 months, and 6 years benefit of military service, respectively. Therefore, this Court is of the view that respective service rendered by the petitioners as military service is to be taken into consideration."

¶24

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant Corporation at a considerable length and are of the view that these appeals are liable to be dismissed. Keeping in view the nature, contents and import of the Rules it is not possible to deprive the writ petitioner-respondent(s) the benefit of pension under the Regulations, especially when the emergency service benefits have been allowed by the appellant Corporation in favour of the petitioner-respondent(s) as noticed above. It is needless to say that by no stretch of imagination the writ petitioner-respondent(s) could have started contribution for the period of military service before 1992 when the Regulations were framed. In any case, the benefit of emergency service has been granted to the writ petitioner-respon-

¶25

LPA No. 545 of 2011 (O&M) & connected appeals

¶26

¶27

dent(s) during the years 1981, 1986 and 1987. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is unexceptionable on principle and law. The appeals do not merit admission and are thus liable to be dismissed.

¶28

As a sequel to the above discussion, these appeals fail and the same are accordingly dismissed.

¶29

A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected appeals.

¶30

March 22, 2011 PKapoor

¶31

¶32

Sr. No.	LPA No.	CWP No.	Date of decision by the learned Single Judge		Title
1.	545 of 2011	2777 of 2004	08.09.2010	PEPSU Corporat another and ano	Road Transport ion, Patiala and v. Gurdev Singh ther
2.	546 of 2011	8597 of 2002	13.09.2010	PEPSU Corporat Gurchet	Road Transport ion, Patiala v. Singh
3.	547 of 2011	2778 of 2004	08.09.2010	PEPSU Corporat another Dhaliwal	Road Transport ion, Patiala and v. Rajinder Singh and another

¶33

(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE

¶34

March 22, 2011 PKapoor

Prtc v. Rajinder Singh Dhaliwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prtc v. Rajinder Singh Dhaliwal

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

Kavita & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Rajni and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ruby & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Brahm Dev Sharma Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Balbir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jarnail Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab