Allowed

Usha Bansal v. State Ofhy.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Feb 2012CWP/8737/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a college restorer who voluntarily resigned, was denied gratuity and employer's Provident Fund contribution on grounds of insufficient service. Court held gratuity and employer share refundable and awarded them with interest.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner entitled to gratuity based on qualifying service under Rules, refund of employer's provident fund contribution, and 18% interest on both from date of service termination.

Usha Bansal Vs State Ofhy. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No. 8737 of 2003

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 8737 of 2003 Date of decision February 17, 2012

¶5

Ms. Usha Bansal d/o Sh. Bhane Ram Bansal, r/o 23/100, Inder Lok, Sonepat.

¶6

....... Petitioner Versus

¶7

State of Haryana and others

¶8

........ Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶10

Present:Mr. O. P. Goyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gagan, Advocate Bajaj for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG., Haryana for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶12

Mr. J. S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 to 5.

¶13

¶14

K. Kannan, J (oral).

¶15

The petitioner seeks for a mandamus for release of his retiral benefits with interest. At the time of the arguments the counsel for the petitioner restricts his claim for employer's contribution to the Provident Fund Scheme and to the service gratuity payable under the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Pension and Contributory Provident Fund) Rules 1999.

¶16

The petitioner had been a restorer employed with the fourth respondent-College affiliated to the Maharishi Dayanand University. She had voluntarily resigned on 18.11.1999 after serving for 18 years 3 months and 18 days since 13.8.1981. The petitioner was a contributory to the Contributory Provident Fund w.e.f. 1.8.1983.

¶17

The petitioners claim has been rejected on the

¶18

CWP No. 8737 of 2003

¶19

¶20

ground that the petitioner had voluntarily resigned from service and had not completed 20 years of service to claim the Contributory Provident Fund and the Gratuity.

¶21

Learned counsel points out that in terms of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1999 the retirement benefit admissible under the rules includes service gratuity and the entitlement to the same is seen from the provision under Rule 12 that allows for a retirement gratuity to an employee. Rule 12(1) provides to an employee who retired voluntarily or retired compulsorily gratuity according to the length of qualifying service as provided in the succeeding Rule. Rule 12(5) provides for proportionate pension to an employee retiring voluntarily with weightage up to 5 years as addition to the qualifying service rendered by him. Rule 13 specify that where the qualifying service is less than 10 years the amount of service gratuity shall be appropriate amount as set out in the table in Annexure-I but no pension shall be granted to him.

¶22

In this case, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner does not claim pension for the petitioner but contends that there is no particular rule anywhere that stipulates 20 years as the qualifying service for claiming service gratuity. Indeed such a construction is possible only for claiming pension through a specific clause that spells out qualifying service to be 20 years for claiming pension but as regards gratuity the 20 years period does not apply. Rule 13 provides for a manner of reckoning service gratuity for a person who had qualifying service for less that 10 years, by implication, they could not have denied a claim for service gratuity for a person who had more than 10 years of service. The denial of gratuity was therefore untenable.

¶23

In this case the fact that the petitioner was a member of contributory provident fund since 1.8.1983 is not denied. The claim of pension could not have been denied appropriately for not

¶24

¶25

CWP No. 8737 of 2003

¶26

completing the requisite number of years of service. A member voluntarily retiring cannot forfeit by any rule the return of the Employer's contribution to the fund. In this case. Only the employees' share of the contribution has been refunded to the petitioner with interest but the Employer's contribution has been retained with the Government. There is no justification for such a retention as well.

¶27

I find that the petitioner has been unjustly denied the benefits of what she was entitled to and the gratuity shall be payable for the number of years in the manner contemplated under the rules. The petitioner will also be entitled to the refund of the Employer's contribution from respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Both as regards the claim to gratuity as well as to the Employer's contribution, the same shall be paid with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date when her services stood determined namely on 18.11.1999 till the date of payment.

¶28

The writ petition is allowed on the above terms.

¶29

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶30

February 17, 2012 archana

Usha Bansal v. State Ofhy.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha Bansal v. State Ofhy.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munshi Ram & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Ram Rattan etc. Vs F.C.I.Etc.

Dina Ram Vs State of Pb.

Chaman Lal Aggarwal Vs Panjab University & Ors.

Avtar Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Sartaj Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.