advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Saturday, September 7, 2013

whether the service rendered by the respondent in the Department of Education, Punjab be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension under the Punjab School Education Board (Employees Pension, Provident Fund and Gratuity) Regulations, 1991 (for short “the Regulations 1991”).=The order of this Court dated 14.03.2012 passed in SLP(C) No.11837 of 2008 reads as follows: “I.A. No.4 of 2012 has been filed by the respondents with a prayer to take on record Notification dated 17.03.2011 issued by the Punjab School Education Board (for short, ‘the Board’) under which an employee shall be eligible to add his service qualifying for superannuation pension, but not for any other pension. It further shows that benefit can be for a maximum period of 8 years only and not for more than 8 years. The respondents fall within this category. Thus, in the light of the subsequent Notification dated 17.03.2011 issued by the Board, which has been given retrospective effect and would be applicable to all those who have been appointed before 1.1.2004 and do not fall within the prohibited category as per the proviso would be entitled for getting the necessary benefit thereof. In the light of this, there is no substance in this special leave petition, which is accordingly hereby dismissed. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents informed that in fact they are already been paid pensionary benefits.” - We are of the view that the said notification would equally apply to the respondent in this case as well. The respondent had already put in more than eight years of service in the Board, consequently, he is also entitled to get the benefit of notification dated 17.03.2011. In the circumstances, the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.

                published in    http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40734                                         
     REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7820 OF 2013
                  (Arising out of SLP(C) No.11777 of 2008)

Punjab School Education Board                      … Appellant

                                   Versus

Dalip Chand and others                             … Respondents

                               J U D G M E N T

K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1.    Leave granted.

2.    The question that has come up for  consideration  in  this  appeal  is
whether the  service  rendered  by  the  respondent  in  the Department  of Education, Punjab be treated  as  qualifying service  for  the  purpose  of pension  under  the  Punjab  School Education  Board  (Employees   Pension, Provident Fund and Gratuity) Regulations, 1991 (for short  “the  Regulations
1991”).

3.     The  respondent-herein  was  recruited  as  clerk   by   the   Punjab
Subordinate Service Selection Board on 07.04.1965 and he was posted  in  the
Department of Education, Punjab.  Later he was appointed as  a  lecturer  in
Political Science in Government Senior Secondary School,  Valtoha,  District
Amritsar where he served upto 1970.   He  had  worked  as  an  assistant  in
Education Department from June 1970 to 08.08.1979.

4.    Punjab School Education Board on 03.05.1979 advertised  for  the  post
of Superintendent.  The  respondent  applied  for  the  said  post  and  was
selected.  Appointment order dated 03.08.1979 was sent to him and he  joined
on 08.08.1979 in the service of the  Board.   For  the  purpose  of  joining
service of the Board he was relieved from the Education  Department  in  the
forenoon of 08.08.1979.   After  joining  the  service  in  the  Board,  the
respondent was contributing CPF under  the  Punjab  School  Education  Board
(Provident Fund) Regulations, 1970, since at that time service in the  Board
was not pensionable.  Service in the Board was later made pensionable  under
the  1991  Regulations  w.e.f.  01.04.1991.   All  the  employees  who  were
employed after the inception of the Board were asked to give  option  to  be
governed either  by  the  Pension  Regulations  or  by  the  Provident  Fund
Regulations.   The  respondent  opted  to  be  governed   by   the   Pension
Regulations.


5.    The respondent retired from the service after serving the  Board  from
08.08.1979  to  31.10.2000.   Previously,  he  had  served   the   Education
Department for 14 years 1 month and 21 days.  The respondent had  put  in  a
total service of 35 years 4 months and 14 days, reckoning both the  services
of the Education as well as the Board and respondent claimed  pension  under
Regulation 6 of the 1991 Regulations.


6.    The claim of the respondent was rejected by the Board  on  the  ground
that the benefit of Regulation 6 would apply only  to  those  employees  who
had joined the service of the Board either on transfer or on deputation  and
were subsequently absorbed in the Board.  Further it was  pointed  out  that
since the respondent was appointed neither on  transfer  nor  on  deputation
but  through  direct  recruitment,  the  service  rendered  by  him  in  the
Education Department could not be treated  as  qualifying  service  for  the
purpose of pension for  his  eligibility  to  get  pension  under  the  1991
Regulations.


7.    The High Court did not find any merit in the contention of the  Board,
allowed the writ petition and quashed the  impugned  orders  passed  by  the
Board on 06.07.2005 and 29.09.2005 and directed  the  Board  to  reckon  the
service of the respondent in the Education Department as qualifying  service
for the purpose of pension.   Aggrieved by the same, the Board has  come  up
with this appeal


8.    We notice that a similar issue  came  for  consideration  before  this
Court in SLP(C) No.11837 of 2008,  wherein  a  notification  issued  by  the
Board on 17.03.2011 was produced and this Court granted  the  benefit  to  a
similarly placed pensioner.  
The  order  of  this  Court  dated  14.03.2012
passed in SLP(C) No.11837 of 2008 reads as follows:
    “I.A. No.4 of 2012 has been filed by the respondents with a  prayer  to
    take on record Notification  dated  17.03.2011  issued  by  the  Punjab
    School Education Board (for short, ‘the Board’) under which an employee
    shall be eligible to add  his  service  qualifying  for  superannuation
    pension, but not for any other pension.  It further shows that  benefit
    can be for a maximum period of 8 years only and not  for  more  than  8
    years.  The respondents fall within this category.


            Thus,  in  the  light  of  the  subsequent  Notification   dated
    17.03.2011 issued by the Board,  which  has  been  given  retrospective
    effect and would be applicable to all those  who  have  been  appointed
    before 1.1.2004 and do not fall within the prohibited category  as  per
    the proviso  would  be  entitled  for  getting  the  necessary  benefit
    thereof.  In the light of this, there is no substance in  this  special
    leave petition, which is accordingly hereby dismissed.


            The learned counsel appearing for the respondents informed that
    in fact they are already been paid pensionary benefits.”

9.    We are of the view that the said notification would equally  apply  to
the respondent in this case as well.  The  respondent  had  already  put  in
more than eight years of service in the  Board,  consequently,  he  is  also
entitled to get the  benefit  of  notification  dated  17.03.2011.   In  the
circumstances, the appeal lacks merit and the same  is  dismissed,  however,
with no order as to costs.

                                             …………………………….J.
                                             (K.S. Radhakrishnan)




                                                              ………………………………J.
                                             (A.K. Sikri)
New Delhi,
September 06, 2013.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.