Dismissed

State of Punjab & Ors. v. Kartar Singh Brar

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Mar 2014RSA/4065/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In second appeal, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the State of Punjab's challenge to a judgment decreeing an employee's ad hoc service as countable towards pension. The court held statutory rules protect employees from arbitrary state action regarding service interruptions not caused by the employee.

What did the court decide?

The appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

State of Punjab & Ors. Vs Kartar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

RSA-4065-2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.03.2014

¶3

State of Punjab & Ors.

...... Appellants

Versus

Kartar Singh Brar

...... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

¶10

Present : Mr. Sandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab for the appellants.

¶11

¶12

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

¶15

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J.

¶16

Defendant-State of Punjab is in second appeal, against the concurrent findings of facts, recorded by both the learned Courts below, thereby decreeing the suit for declaration, holding the plaintiff entitled for getting his ad hoc service counted towards the length of service for pension.

¶17

The case of the plaintiff, as pleaded in the plaint, is that he retired as Chief Agriculture Officer on 31.1.2002 and at the time of his retirement he was posted at Moga. That initially the plaintiff was appointed as Agriculture Inspector on ad hoc basis on 30.10.1967 and he was relieved on 31.12.1968. That again the plaintiff was appointed as Agriculture Inspector on ad hoc basis on 22.5.1969 and was relieved on 21.8.1969. In this way, the plaintiff completed 18 months and 1 day of ad hoc service. That finally the plaintiff was

¶18

Satyawan 2014.05.08 10:03 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh

¶19

-2-

¶20

RSA-4065-2013

¶21

appointed as Agriculture Officer on regular basis on 9.12.1969 and he retired from service on 31.1.2002 on attaining the age of superannuation. By that time, the plaintiff completed regular service of 32 years, 1 month and 23 days. That the ad hoc service of the plaintiff was not taken into consideration by the defendants while calculating his total pension. That as per Rule 4.23 read with Rules 3.17 and 3.17-A of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II, the entire ad hoc service rendered by the plaintiff is to be taken into consideration for calculating his pension. That the plaintiff gave representations to the defendants for re-fixing his pension by taking into consideration the ad hoc service rendered by him but the same were declined. That finally the plaintiff sent legal notice dated 31.3.1009 to the defendants but the defendants failed to take any action. Hence, the suit.

¶22

The suit was contested by the defendants. Defendants No.1 & 2 filed joint written statement taking preliminary objections that the suit is time barred and that the ad hoc service rendered by the plaintiff could not be considered for pensionary benefits as per the standing instructions dated 26.10.1995 issued by the Punjab Government. On merits, it was admitted that the plaintiff joined the Punjab Agriculture Department on regular basis on 9.12.1969 and got retired on 31.1.2002. It was also admitted that previously the plaintiff worked in the said department on ad hoc basis from 30.10.1967 to 24.9.1968, 1.5.1968 to 31.10.1968, 2.11.1968 to 31.12.1968, 11.4.1969 to 18.5.1969 and 22.5.1969 to 21.8.1969 and thereafter from 9.12.1969 (A.N.) on temporary basis. It was further Satyawan 2014.05.08 10:03 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh

¶23

-3-

¶24

RSA-4065-2013

¶25

pleaded that the appointment of the plaintiff on ad hoc basis was not made according to the rules. That the ad hoc service of 18 months and 1 day rendered by the plaintiff was an interrupted served with a break of about 8 months and thus the said period cannot be counted for calculating the pensionary benefits of the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that the pensionary benefits have already been granted to the plaintiff as per rules of the defendants. The other averments of the plaint were denied being wrong and it was pleaded that the suit be dismissed.

¶26

Defendant No.3 filed separate written statement taking preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable in the present form and that the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 CPC. On merits, it was pleaded that the plaintiff got retired from Govt. service on 31.1.2002 on attaining the age of superannuation. That the pensionary benefits have been given to the plaintiff while taking into consideration his qualifying service of 32 years and 3 days. The other averments of the plaint were denied being wrong and it was pleaded that the suit be dismissed.

¶27

On completion of pleadings of parties, learned trial court framed the following issues :-

¶28

Whether plaintiff is entitled to get relief of declaration, as prayed for? OPP

¶29

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get relief of mandatory injunction, as prayed for?OPP

¶30

Whether the suit is within period of limitation? OPP

¶31

Relief.

¶32

Satyawan 2014.05.08 10:03 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh

¶33

-4-

¶34

RSA-4065-2013

¶35

Both the parties led their documentary as well as oral evidence so as to prove their respective stands taken in their pleadings. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that plaintiff has duly proved his case. He was found entitled for getting his ad hoc service counted towards the length of service for pension. Accordingly, the suit was decreed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 6.4.2012. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant-State filed the first appeal which also came to be dismissed by learned District Judge, Moga vide impugned judgment and decree dated 12.2.2013. Hence, this appeal.

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellant-State submits that initially the plaintiff was appointed on ad hoc basis as a casual employee on the post of Agriculture Inspector. There were more than one interruptions and the service was not continuous because of which he was not entitled for counting the service of 18 months and 1 day, towards qualifying service for pension. His initial appointment on ad hoc basis was not according to the rules. Since the learned Courts below have misdirected themselves while not appreciating the true facts of the case in correct perspective, the impugned judgment and decree were not sustainable in law. In support of his contention, he relies upon a judgment of this Court in CWP No. 15081 of 2011 (Shanno Devi v. State of Haryana & Ors.) decided on 11.4.2013 . He prays for setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees, by allowing the present appeal.

¶37

Satyawan 2014.05.08 10:03 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh

¶38

-5-

¶39

RSA-4065-2013

¶40

Having heard learned counsel for the appellants at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the opinion that in the given fact situation of the present case, no interference is warranted at the hands of this Court, while exercising its appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC' for short). To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.

¶41

It is a matter of record that the plaintiff-respondent was appointed on ad hoc basis on 30.10.1967 as Agriculture Inspector. His services were regularized w.e.f. 9.12.1969 and he retired on 31.1.2002 as Chief Agriculture Officer. Vide order dated 18.3.2009, the competent authority of the appellant-State declined to count the ad hoc service of 18 months and 1 day, rendered by the plaintiff towards the qualifying service for pension, thereby giving a cause of action to the plaintiff to file the present suit, which he filed on 24.7.2009. Plaintiff sought a decree of declaration to the effect that the order dated 18.3.2009 was illegal, null and void with consequential relief of mandatory injunction, directing the defendant authorities to count the ad hoc service for calculating his pension, to refix the pension of the plaintiff and also to pay him the arrears along with interest.

¶42

The plea of initial ad hoc appointment being contrary to the relevant procedure for appointment, is and cannot be available to the appointing authority, at this belated stage after the retirement

¶43

of the employee. It is so said because the appointment was granted Satyawan 2014.05.08 10:03 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh

¶44

-6-

¶45

RSA-4065-2013

¶46

by the competent authority of the appellant-State and there was no allegation of misrepresentation against the plaintiff, because of which the principle of estoppel was operating against the appointing authority. Having said, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the learned Courts below committed no error of law, while passing the impugned judgments and decrees and the same deserve to be upheld.

¶47

So far as different interruptions in service of the plaintiff, before his service was regularized, are concerned, the interruptions did not take place because of any fault on the part of the employee. This is neither the pleaded nor argued case of the appellant - State. Once there was no allegation of any kind, whatsoever, against the plaintiff, he cannot be made to suffer for the fault, if any, on the part of the authorities of the State. Interruptions in service took place only because of the defective working system in the department. It was obligatory on the part of the authorities concerned, being a model employer, to ensure effective, smooth and proper functioning in this regard.

¶48

If, for one or the other reason, the working system in the department was not upto the mark, and interruptions in service of the plaintiff took place, despite his readiness and willingness to do work continuously, the employee would not be at fault. In such a situation, the employee is entitled for the statutory protection provided under Rule 3.27A and 4.23 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II. The provisions contained in these statutory rules fell for consideration

¶49

of this Court at many occasions and every time these rules were Satyawan 2014.05.08 10:03 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh

¶50

-7-

¶51

RSA-4065-2013

¶52

interpreted in favour of the employee and rightly so because the purpose and object of the rules is to grant statutory protection to the employee so as to save him from the arbitrary action of the State, as in the present case.

¶53

The legal position in this regard is no more res integra as the controversy had already been set at rest. Reference can be made to the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab 1988(3) PLR 223, Mangat Ram v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. and others 2005(5) SLR 793, Chhalinder Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2005(3) RSJ 733 (P&H), Hardip Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2003(4) RSJ 338 and Raja Ram Malik and another vs. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. 2008 (2) RSJ, 607 (P&H). Even the judgment in Shanno Devi (supra) cited by learned counsel for the appellant also clearly goes in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Since both the learned Courts below have rightly followed the law laid down by this Court in direct judgments on the subject, the impugned judgments and decrees deserve to be upheld, for this reason also.

¶54

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any jurisdictional error or patent illegality apparent on the record of the case, in either of the impugned judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below. He also failed to press into service any substantive argument so as to convince this Court to take a different view than the one taken in the impugned judgments. Further, no question of law, muchless Satyawan substantial question of law has been found involved in the present 2014.05.08 10:03 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh

¶55

RSA-4065-2013 -8-

¶56

case, which is sine qua non for interference by this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 of CPC. Thus, the impugned judgments and decrees deserve to be upheld for this reason as well.

¶57

No other argument was raised.

¶58

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the present appeal is misconceived, bereft of any merit and without any substance, thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out.

¶59

Resultantly, this appeal stands dismissed, however, with

¶60

no order as to costs.

¶61

( RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK ) 14.03.2014 JUDGE ‘Satyawan’

¶62

Satyawan 2014.05.08 10:03 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh

State of Punjab & Ors. v. Kartar Singh Brar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Punjab & Ors. v. Kartar Singh Brar

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

Hans Raj Vs Kanta Devi and Ors.

Bishan Singh Vs Gram Panchayat Gurdaspur and Ors.

Makhan Singh Vs Surender

(O&M) National Insurance Company Vs Sukhbir Singh and Ors.

New India Ass.Co.Ltd. Vs Achhari Devi etc.

Anil Kumar Sachdeva and Ors. Vs Kamaljeet Sachdeva and Ors.