Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 3076
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajesh Bindal, Deepak Sibal, JJ.
State Of Haryana - Appellant
Versus
Nathu Singh - Respondent
LPA No. 1105 of 2017 (O&M) in CWP No. 26716 of 2014
Decided On : 29-05-2018
B.R. Mahajan, A.G., Haryana with Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG, Haryana and Ms. Apoorv Garg, DAG, Haryana, for the Appellants; B.K. Bagri, Advocate, for the Respondent
Acceptance of terms of re-employment, including no claim to past service, precludes an employee from seeking to count past service for pensionary benefits.
Headnote:
Retrenchment - Pensionary Benefits - Article 309 of the Constitution of India - Scheme for re-employment of retrenched employees - Fresh appointment - Counting of past service - Writ petition seeking direction for counting service rendered with the Corporation for retiral benefits - Court's analysis of relevant judgments and schemes
Fact of the Case:
The respondent sought the benefit of service rendered with the Corporation before retrenchment for pensionary benefits. The State impugned the order of the learned Single Judge, contending that the respondent's service benefits were paid upon retrenchment, and his subsequent re-employment was made afresh with no claim to past service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's service with the Corporation was retrenched, and he was subsequently re-employed under a scheme for re-employment of retrenched employees. The court held that the respondent's acceptance of the terms of re-employment, including no claim to past service, precluded him from seeking to count his past service for pensionary benefits.
Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of the scheme for re-employment, the terms of the respondent's re-employment, and the applicability of past judgments and instructions to the present case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent's acceptance of the terms of re-employment, including no claim to past service, precluded him from seeking to count his past service for pensionary benefits. The court also found that the judgments and instructions cited by the parties were distinguishable and not applicable to the present case.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition, holding that the respondent was not entitled to count service rendered in the Corporation before re-employment for pensionary benefits.
JUDGMENT
Rajesh Bindal J. - The State has filed the present intra-court appeal impugning therein the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 27.09.2016 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent seeking benefit of service rendered by him from 09.12.1974 to 30.06.2002 with Haryana State Mineral Irrigation Tubewell Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') before retrenchment of his service, was directed to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
2. Mr. B.R. Mahajan, learned Advocate General, Haryana while assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge submitted that respondent was working with Corporation and the period for which he worked therein is not in dispute. While he was in service, it was decided to close its operation. Subsequently, it was wound up. The operation of the Corporation was closed on 30.07.2002, as a result of which, all surplus employees were retrenched. They were paid all the benefits due to them. In addition, subsequently some employees were given golden hand-shake. However, some of the employees, as per their seniority, were transferred to other Government Departments/Corporations before the operation of the Corporation was stopped. In the case in hand, the services of the respondent were retrenched on 30.06.2002. All service benefits due to him, in addition to the amount payable as golden hand-shake, were paid and the relationship of master and servant severed.
3. The State in exercise of powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India notified a Scheme on 21.06.2006 providing for re-employment of the regular retrenched Group 'C' and 'D' employees of Boards/Corporations/Public Sector Undertakings, who had been retrenched from 01.03.2000 to 01.03.2005. The re-employment was to be made against vacancies of direct recruitment in Group 'C' and 'D', against available posts. A committee was constituted. Certain conditions were laid down in the scheme. One of the conditions was that adjustment of the retrenched employees would be subject to submission of affidavit that such adjustment shall be considered as a fresh appointment and no benefit of the past service shall be claimed.
4. In pursuance to the aforesaid scheme, the respondent was appointed as Driver in the Office of the Director General of Prisons, Haryana, vide appointment letter dated 01.09.2006 i.e. more than four years after his retrenchment from service. It was specifically provided in the appointment letter that the same is made afresh at the minimum of the pay scale. The respondent was to be placed at the junior most level in the seniority list. Accepting the conditions of appointment, the respondent joined service, continued working and on 31.01.2013 even retired on attaining the age of superannuation. No issues were raised regarding claim of any service rendered with the Corporation. About two years after his retirement, the respondent filed a writ petition seeking a direction for counting his service rendered with the Corporation for the purpose of retiral benefits. The same has been erroneously allowed by the learned Single Judge ignoring two Division Bench judgments of this Court exactly on the issue in LPA No.570 of 2012 titled as 'Jai Narain Kaushik and others v. State of Haryana and another' decided on 04.02.2014 & LPA No.857 of 2014 titled as 'Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana and others' decided on 12.08.2014 and further a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 'Mrigank Johri and others v. Union of India and others', (2017) 8 SCC 256 .
5. It was further submitted that the learned Single Judge erred while placing reliance upon order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 'State of Haryana and another v. Deepak Sood and others', in Civil Appeal No.4446 of 2008 decided on 15.07.2008 and judgment of this Court in 'Suresh Chand and others v. State of Haryana and others' in CWP No.3792 of 2012 decided on 14.01.2016 , which are distinguishable as in those cases, the emplo
