PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
D.K.Mahajan and P.C.Jain JJ.
Basant Lal Malhotra
Versus
State Of Punjab
Civil Writ No. 559 of 1963,
Decided On : JULY 31, 1968
PENSION - PUNJAB CIVIL SERVICES RULES (VOLUME II) - RULE 4.2 - RECRUITMENT AND APPOINTMENT - DISTINCTION - INTERPRETATION - PENSIONER ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF RULE 4.2.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Additional District and Sessions Judge, sought to have his pension refixed by allowing him the benefit of rule 4.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (Volume II), which allowed for the condonation of a period not exceeding five years for the purposes of pension for officers recruited before 11th September 1937. The petitioner argued that he was recruited to the P.C.S. (Judicial Cadre) in 1935 and that his actual period of service should be counted as 28 years and 6 months for the purposes of pension fixation. The State contended that the petitioner was appointed as a Subordinate Judge in October 1938, after the crucial date of 11th September 1937, and was therefore not entitled to the benefit of rule 4.2.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that there was a clear distinction between the terms "recruitment" and "appointment" and that the petitioner should be deemed to have been recruited on the 26th of March, 1936, when he was nominated as a candidate for appointment in P.C.S. (Judicial Brach). The court found that the petitioner had undergone training and received a stipend before his actual appointment as a Subordinate Judge in October 1938, and that this period of training constituted recruitment for the purposes of rule 4.2.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was recruited before or after 11th September 1937 to the P.C.S. (Judicial Branch) and was entitled to the benefit of rule 4.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (Volume II).
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted rule 4.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (Volume II) and the relevant provisions of Chapter 22 of the Rules and Orders of the Punjab High Court, Volume I, to conclude that the terms "recruitment" and "appointment" were not synonymous. The court held that recruitment connoted enlistment, acceptance, selection, or approval for appointment, while appointment meant an actual act of posting a person to a particular office. The court found that the petitioner had been recruited before 11th September 1937 and was therefore entitled to the benefit of rule 4.2.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed the State to refix the petitioner's pension by allowing him the benefit of rule 4.2. There was no order as to costs.
P.C.Jain, J.
1. This is a petition filed by Basant Lal Malhotra, retired Additional District and Sessions Judge Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction o order directing respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to refix the pension of the petitioner by allowing him the benefit of rule 4.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (Volume II).
2. The facts as alleged in the petition ar that the petitioner was recruited or enlisted to the P. C. S. (Judicial Cadre) as a result of the competitive examination held by the Lahore High Court in the year 1935 and thereafter having been declared medically fit and having passed the departmental examination in the higher standard and having undergone the prescribed course of six months revenue and judicial training: the petitioner was appointed as a Subordinate Judge in October, 1938. The petitioner on acquiring superannuation at the age of 55 years eventually retired from service in April , 1962. As Additional District and Sessions Judge. According to the petitioner, the provisions as contained in rule 4.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (Volume II ) marked a distinction between the cases of officers recruited to the services before 11th of September , 1937, and of those recruited after the said date in the matter relating to the condonation of a period not exceeding five years for the purposes of pension and on the interpretation of this rule the petitioner claimed that his actual period of 23 years and 6 months service be counted for the purposes fixation of pension as 28 years and 6 months . For this purpose, the petitioner moved the Punjab Government through the Registrar, Punjab High Court i9n the year 1956 to obtain the confirmation for his being entitled to the benefit of five years period of service for the purposes of fixation of pension. In due course, respondent No. 1 (State of Punjab) vide its letter dated 25th of June, 1956 sent a reply to the effect that the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of the said rule because he had been appointed to the P. C. S. (Judicial Branch) after 11th of September , 1937. It was further alleged that a representation was also made to the Accountant General , Punjab at Simla , as also to the State of Punjab, but again he was informed that as he was appointed after the 11th of September , 1937, he would not be entitled to the benefit for rule 4.2 of the Pension Rules referred to above. According to the petitioner, absolutely wrong interpretation has been put on rule 4.2 as respondents 1 and 2 are confusing the expression recruitment with the expression appointment . According tot he petitioner, the very fact that a candidate on recruitment to the P. C. S. (Judicial Branch) under the rules was required to produce a certificate of medical fitness and to undergo six months revenue and judicial training receiving a stipend of Rs. 80/- P. M. and to pass a departmental examination in higher standard as conditions precedent to his appointment in service, was indicative of the vast difference between the terms recruited and appointed Respondents 1 and 2 in utter disregard to the difference between th said two terms have declared the petitioner as disentitled to the benefit of rule 4.2 and this action of respondents is unwarranted and clear breach of the fundamental rules governing the pension and conditions of service of the petitioner.
3. In the joint written statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, it was emphatically asserted that the petitioner jointed service as Subordinate Judge on 4th of October, 1938 , i.e., after the crucial date of 11th of September 1937 and as such he could not claim to have been recruited to the post or service earlier than 4th of October , 1938, even though he got training for the period from 12th of March, 1937 to 2nd of August, 1937, and from 1st of September, 1937 to 10th of October, 1937. For purposes of rule 4.2
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.