Dismissed

R.K. Chauhan v. State of Hry and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Jan 2012CWP/2351/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged an order declining the petitioner's claim to include his service in a Punjab college under same management for Haryana pension benefits. The court held the Pension Rules, 1999 require sanctioned aided posts for such benefits, which were absent. The fresh post appointment in Haryana negated transfer claims, leading to dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Direction to credit service period under Punjab laws and order revisioning was not granted; petition dismissed.

R.K. Chauhan Vs State of Hry and Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP No. 2351 of 2006 Date of Decision: 12.1.2012.

Dr. R.K. Chauhan

--Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana & another

¶7

--Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

¶9

Present:Mr. Raghubir Tejpal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. K.C. Bhatia, Addl. A.G., Haryana for respondents.

¶11

¶12

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J

¶13

Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 29.7.2003 passed by the Commissioner, Directorate of Higher Education, State of Haryana, whereby the claim of the petitioner for revision of his retiral benefits by taking into account his service for the period w.e.f. 1.7.1966 to 25.8.1985 as Lecturer, Chemistry in D.A.V. College, Abohar (Pb.), has been declined.

¶14

Briefly stated, the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Lecturer in Chemistry in the pay scale of Rs.300-600 and he joined service at D.A.V. College, Abhohar, Punjab on 1.7.1966. Thereafter, in pursuance to a selection process the petitioner was selected and appointed as Principal in D.A.V. College, Naneola (Haryana) on 26.8.1985. He served as Principal in D.A.V. College, Naneola from 26.8.1985 to 30.9.1985 and subsequently as Principal, D.A.V. College, Poondri from 1.10.1985 to 10.2.1994 and finally as Principal, D.A.V. College, Ambala City from 11.2.1994 to 31.3.2002, whereupon he retired having attained the age of superannuation. The petitioner is stated to have submitted a number of

¶15

CWP No. 2351 of 2006

¶16

-2-

¶17

representations claiming his retiral benefits for the entire period of service i.e. from 1.7.1966 to 31.3.2002. A sum of Rs.4921/- per month towards pension has been admitted by the State of Haryana and the grievance of the petitioner is that while admitting such claim for pension the period of service rendered by the petitioner on the post of Lecturer in Chemistry from 1.7.1966 to 25.8.1985 at D.A.V College, Abohar in the State of Punjab has not been taken into reckoning. In response to the numerous representations filed by the petitioner to agitate his claim the impugned order dated 29.7.2003 has been passed by respondent no.1, wherein he has been intimated that there is no provision in the pension notification for grant of benefit of service rendered under other State colleges. As such the petitioner is seeking the issuance of a writ of Certiorari for quashing of the impugned order dated 29.7.2003 and is further seeking directions to the respondents-authorities to revise his retiral benefits and pension by taking into account the period i.e. 1.7.1966 to 25.8.1985, i.e. the period when he had served on the post of Lecturer, Chemistry in D.A.V. College, Abohar.

¶18

I have heard respective counsel for the parties at length and have perused the paper book minutely.

¶19

The primary contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the entire service of the petitioner be it in the State of Punjab or thereafter in the State of Haryana, has been rendered in institutions managed by the same management i.e. the D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society having its Head Office at New Delhi. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that even though, he was selected for the post of Principal but his services were ordered to be transferred from D.A.V. College, Abohar to D.A.V. College, Naneola. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard

¶20

CWP No. 2351 of 2006

¶21

-3-

¶22

makes a reference to the communication dated 24.8.1985 at Annexure P-2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is staking his claim by relying upon Rule 6 of the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Pension and Contributory) Provident Fund Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Pension Rules, 1999). The precise contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the Pension Rules, 1999 the service rendered in one or more private affiliated colleges receiving grant-in-aid under the same management has to be counted for purposes of grant of retiral benefits. As such, it is contended that there is no basis for denying the petitioner the retiral benefits pertaining to the service rendered by the petitioner for the period w.e.f. 1.7.1966 to 25.8.1985 while serving on the post of Lecturer in an institution, although situated in the State of Punjab but being under the same management i.e. the D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society, New Delhi.

¶23

The legality and correctness of the impugned order dated 29.7.2003 passed by respondent no.1 and the claim of the petitioner as raised in the present petition would have to be adjudicated upon in the light of the Pension Rules, 1999. Rule 3, clauses 1 and 2 clearly lay down that such rule shall apply only to the employees, who are appointed to aided sanctioned posts after 11.5.1998 and to such employees who were working on aided sanctioned posts immediately before 11.5.1998 and continued to work as such. Rule 3 sub clause 2 (ii) further stipulates that the Pension Rules, 1999 shall not apply to the employees appointed against a post not sanctioned by the Govt. of Haryana. The expression “aided sanctioned posts” is defined under Rule 2, sub clause (a) of the Pension Rules, 1999 and it means a post for which grant-in-aid is allowed by the Director, Higher Education, State of Haryana. Rule 6 of the Pension Rules, 1999 reads in the

CWP No. 2351 of 2006

-4-

following terms:-

“6. The services of an employee shall qualify for retirement benefits under these rules as under:-

¶28

(i) The service rendered on attaining the age of 18 years on approved post admitted for grant-in-aid;

¶29

(ii) The service rendered uptill the attainment of superannuation age of 60 years.

¶30

(iii) The leave admissible under the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Rules, 1979 and under instructions issued by the Govt. from time to time, excluding the leave without pay and period of suspension over stay of leave not subsequently regularised and period of break in service.

¶31

(iv) Service rendered in one or more private affiliated college, receiving grant-in-aid under the same management. (v) Service rendered on aided sanctioned post in any aided college in the State of Haryana.

¶32

Provided that the official has been appointed through proper channel on aided sanctioned post and the approval of continuity of service has been obtained from the Director.

¶33

Provided further that Contributory Provident Fund account of the employee in the previous college continued as such in the subsequent college to which he is transferred or appointed and there is no break in service or the service conditions as modified by the Govt. time to time.”

¶34

A cumulative reading of Rules 2, 3 and 6 makes it clear that the

¶35

benefit of the Pension Rules, 1999 are admissible to all such employees, who are appointed to aided sanctioned posts and such aided sanctioned posts stands defined to mean a post for which grant-in-aid is allowed by the Director, Higher Education, Haryana. It is only upon being eligible in terms of Rules 2 and 3 of the Pension Rules, 1999 that the service rendered in one

¶36

or more private management colleges receiving grant-in-aid under the same

¶37

CWP No. 2351 of 2006

¶38

-5-

¶39

management would be taken into account for purposes of retiral benefits under the Pension Rules, 1999.

¶40

By virtue of the operation of Pension Rules, 1999, it would be crystal clear that the service rendered by the petitioner for the period 1.7.1966 to 25.8.1985 while working on the post of Lecturer in Chemistry at D.A.V. College, Abohar, Punjab was not against any sanctioned post for which grant-in-aid has been allowed by respondent no.1. As such there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 29.7.2003 passed by respondent no.1, wherein it has been held that the benefit of service rendered under other State colleges cannot be granted for purposes of grant of pension to the petitioner.

¶41

In terms of the pleadings and in particular with reference to the written statement submitted on behalf of respondents no.2 and 3, it is noticed that the petitioner has already been paid the gratuity by the State of Haryana for the period he served with the D.A.V institution under the Haryana State jurisdiction i.e. from 26.8.1985 to 31.3.2002 i.e. his age of retirement. The State of Haryana has, accordingly, released and paid to the petitioner an amount of Rs.2,45,850/- towards gratuity. The petitioner has also been released and paid an amount of Rs.1,04,150/- by the D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society for the service rendered by the petitioner in the State of Punjab i.e. from 1.7.1966 to 25.8.1985. As such the petitioner has been paid a total amount of Rs.3,50,000/- towards the gratuity. Admittedly, this is the maximum sanctioned ceiling amount as stipulated under Rule 14 sub clause (iii) of the Pension Rules, 1999. That apart the petitioner has already drawn his Provident Fund i.e his own share as also the management share for the period he served both in the State of

¶42

CWP No. 2351 of 2006 -6-

¶43

Punjab as also the State of Haryana. The details thereof are that Rs.6,73,870/- has been paid by the State of Haryana for the period 26.8.1985 to 31.2.2002 and Rs.2,76,706/- paid by the Management Committee, D.A.V for the period w.e.f. 1.7.1966 to 25.8.1985. A total of Rs.9,41,576/- has been paid and released to the petitioner towards the Provident Fund. As such no amount towards the Provident Fund or gratuity is due to him. These facts have not been rebutted by the petitioner.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on two Division Bench judgements of this Court reported as 2007 (2) RSJ 782 titled as Om Parkash Bansal and others v. State of Punjab and others and 2006(1) RSJ 533 titled as Ved Parkash Kaushik v. State of Haryana and others.

¶45

In the matter of Om Parkash Bansal and others v. State of Punjab & others , the claim of the petitioners therein was for counting their service rendered with the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana as part of the qualifying service for the purposes of pension under the Punjab School Education Board. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court that the employee was required to possess an experience of 7 years as a Clerk in a Govt. Department or some Govt./Autonomous Organization to become eligible for appointment on the post of Assistant. The experience on the post of Clerk was an integral part of the essential qualification. Against such backdrop the petitioners therein were held entitled to the benefit of service rendered by them on the post of Clerk to be included in the qualifying service rendered by them in the Board for the purposes of pension. There is no parity on facts as regards the claim raised by the petitioner in the present petition.

¶46

CWP No. 2351 of 2006

¶47

-7-

¶48

Even the reliance placed by the petitioner upon the Division Bench judgement rendered in Ved Parkash Kaushik's case (supra) is wholly misplaced. The facts in Ved Parkash Kaushik's case were that the petitioner therein was transferred from D.A.V. School, Derabassi, State of Punjab to the State of Haryana and his transfer was duly ratified by the management as also the Education Department, State of Haryana and he had been given benefit of the grant-in-aid and the arrears were also released by the Haryana Govt. on the basis of revised pay scale. Upon transfer his pay had been protected and the grant-in-aid was given by the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana. Post retirement the pay of the petitioner had been ordered to be reduced without affording him any opportunity of hearing and such reduction had been ordered w.e.f. 16.8.1982 vide order dated 23.10.2001 i.e after a period of about 18 years. The facts of the present case are entirely different. Even though, the petitioner has relied upon a communication dated 24.8.1985 at Annexure P-2 to raise a contention that he had been directed to join service at D.A.V. College, Naneola from D.A.V. College, Abohar, State of Punjab on transfer basis but it is clear that the word “transfer” is a clear misnomer. It has been specifically pleaded in the written statement filed on behalf of respondents no.2 and 3 that the selection of the petitioner for the post of Principal, D.A.V. College, Naneola in the year 1985 was in pursuance to a selection process which had resulted in a fresh appointment. The post of Principal had been advertised and the petitioner had duly applied for the same. Out of the total of five applicants, who applied for such post, two candidates including the petitioner had been shortlisted and in pursuance to the proceedings of a duly constituted selection committee the petitioner had

¶49

CWP No. 2351 of 2006

¶50

-8-

¶51

been selected and appointed to the post of Principal of an institution situated in the State of Haryana. It was a clear case of fresh appointment and not of a transfer. Such categorical averments made in the joint reply filed on behalf of respondents no.2 and 3 have gone unrebutted at the hands of the petitioner.

¶52

In view of the observations and discussion held above, the claim of the petitioner seeking revision of his retiral benefits at the hands of State of Haryana in relation to his service rendered on the post of Lecturer in Chemistry from 1.7.1966 to 25.8.1985 in D.A.V. College, Abohar, State of Punjab is held untenable and beyond the scope and operation of the Pension Rules, 1999. There is no infirmity or illegality in the passing of the impugned order dated 29.7.2003.

¶53

The petition is devoid of merit and must fail. Petition dismissed.

¶54

(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE

¶55

12.1.2012. lucky

¶56

Whether to be reported? Yes.

R.K. Chauhan v. State of Hry and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.K. Chauhan v. State of Hry and Anr.

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 Namdev Finvest Pvt. Ltd. Vs Baljinder Singh

Hans Raj Vs State of Punjab

Satwant Singh Vs State of Punjab

Vikram Devi Vs State of Haryana

Balvir Singh Vs Vijay Kumar and Ors.

Kharaiti Lal Vs State of Haryana and Anr.