Sarwan Singh Vs State of Pb.Etc. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sarwan Singh Vs State of Pb.Etc. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; liberty reserved to the petitioner to get the petition revived by demonstrating that the lis still survives.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents are to be directed to grant the petitioner retiral benefits including pension and gratuity by counting his entire service from 20.07.1941 to 30.09.1979. +1 more

Court's answer

From the pleadings, the Court recorded the petitioner's service history: he joined the Department of Education, Punjab as a Primary Teacher on 20.07.1941 and served until the Partition of the country on 15.08.1947; thereafter he joined on the same post in District Board, Jalandhar on 17.06.1950 and retired on attaining superannuation on 30.09.1979; at the time of filing he was 79 years of age (date of birth 15.09.1921).

Ratio / Principle

There being no rebuttal by way of replication to the State's stand (21 years' delay; reliance on State of Punjab v. Manohar Singh against counting pre-01.10.1957 service), the Court disposed of the petition, reserving the petitioner liberty to get it revived by demonstrating that the lis still survives.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court, CWP-17814-2000 (O&M), decided 03.07.2025 by Aman Chaudhary, J. (Oral). Sarwan Singh prayed for retiral benefits including pension and gratuity by counting his entire service from 20.07.1941 to 30.09.1979: Primary Teacher, Department of Education, Punjab from 20.07.1941 until the Partition on 15.08.1947, then the same post in District Board, Jalandhar from 17.06.1950, retiring on superannuation on 30.09.1979 (petitioner aged 79, DOB 15.09.1921, at filing). Learned State counsel, referring to the written statement dated 13.07.2001 of respondent Nos.1 to 4, pleaded an enormous delay of 21 years and, invoking State of Punjab v. Manohar Singh (Civil Appeal No.884 of 1999, SLP No.21640/97, decided 12.02.1999), contended that service prior to 01.10.1957 was not countable for pension, post-that-date service already having been accounted for. No replication was filed. The Court disposed of the petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to get it revived by demonstrating that the lis still survives; no substantive ruling was made on entitlement.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

209

CWP-17814-2000 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.07.2025

Sarwan Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

Present : None for the petitioner.

Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab.

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral)

Prayer made in the present petition is for directing the respondents to grant the retiral benefits including pension and gratuity to the petitioner after counting his entire service from 20.07.1941 to 30.09.1979.

2. As is apparent from the perusal of the pleadings, the petitioner, who was 79 years of age having date of birth 15.09.1921 at the time of filing the present petition, had joined the Department of Education, Punjab as a Primary Teacher on 20.07.1941 and served as such till 15.08.1947, the date on which the partition of the country had taken place, whereafter he joined on the same post in District Board, Jalandhar on 17.06.1950, wherefrom he was retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.1979.

3. Learned State counsel referring to the written statement dated 13.07.2001 filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 stating that there was an enormous delay at the hands of the petitioner to approaching this Court, it being 21 years, however, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.884 of 1999 (Special Leave Petition No.21640/97) titled as

State of Punjab and others vs. Shri Manohar Singh and others , decided

HAMANT 2025.07.03 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-17814-2000 (O&M)

-2-

on 12.02.1999, he was not entitled for the service rendered prior to 01.10.1957 for the purpose of pension and after the said date, his services had already been taken into account for the said purpose.

4. T o the aforesaid facts, there was no rebuttal made by filing any

replication.

Disposed of, reserving the petitioner with a liberty to get it revived, by demonstrating that the lis still survives.

(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 03.07.2025 Hemant Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No

HAMANT 2025.07.03 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document