The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the previous employer to calculate and pay the pro-rata pension and other benefits to the successor department to enable payment to the employee.

JUDGMENT

Suvir Sehgal, J. - Prayer in the instant writ petition is for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing speaking order dated 26.09.2014 (Annexure PI) issued by respondent No.2 (Director, Hydel Design Organisation, Chandigarh) denying the benefit of service from 21.01.1981 to 15.09.1997 rendered by the petitioner under respondents No.l (Punjab State Electricity Board now Punjab State Power Corporation) and 2 before joining service under respondents No.3 (Director, Technical Education and Industrial Training, Punjab) and 4 (Principal Industrial Training Organisation Bassi, Pathana). A further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents No.l and 2 to deposit pension and leave contribution as determined in reference to commutation table given in Chapter XI of Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume-II in accordance with the instructions contained in Government letter dated 14.05.1986 (Annexure P2) for counting of service of the aforesaid period rendered under respondents No.l and 2 with a further direction that after the deposit of the contribution by respondents No.l and 2, the service for the aforesaid period be counted in continuation to the service rendered after 15.09.1997 under respondents No.3 and 4 till his superannuation for the purposes of pension and other retiral benefits admissible under the Rules.

2. The petitioner had served as a Carpenter-cum-Mason under respondents No.l and 2 from 21.01.1981 to 15.09.1997. The petitioner applied for appointment as Carpenter Instructor with respondents No.3 and 4 through proper channel and on his appointment, he submitted a technical resignation with respondents No.l and 2. Since the period rendered by the petitioner with respondents No.l and 2 was not being counted for the purposes of pension and other retiral benefits, petitioner filed CWP-15161-2014, wherein this Court vide order dated 01.08.2014 (Annexure P4) issued a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner as contained in representation dated 27.01.2014 by passing a speaking order. In compliance with the said order, respondent No.3 passed a speaking order dated 07.08.2015 (Annexure P3) whereby sanction was granted for counting previous service rendered by the petitioner from 21.01.1981 to 15.09.1997 under respondents No.l and 2 towards pension and other retiral benefits in view of the instructions dated 14.05.1968 (Annexure P2) of the Punjab Government. Respondent No.2 also passed a speaking order dated 26.09.2014 (Annexure PI) in compliance with the direction passed by this Court, whereby the petitioner was not found eligible for grant of pensionary benefits from PSPCL and it was mentioned that the liability to pay the pension was that of respondents No.3 and 4. The petitioner submits that he had rendered 16 years' service with respondents No.l and 2 and for this period of service rendered by him, he had not received any pension or any other terminal benefits from the said respondents. He submits that despite the orders, Annexure P3, having been passed by respondent No.3, the aforesaid period is not being counted for the purposes of pension since the proportionate payment for the said period has not been released by respondents No.l and 2.

3. Upon notice, respondents No.l and 2 filed their written statement, wherein they justified the order dated 26.09.2014 (Annexure PI) and submitted that the liability to pay pension to the petitioner is that of respondents No.3 and 4 since the petitioner was serving with respondents No.3 and 4. It was admitted by the said respondents that the petitioner had applied through proper channel for appointment with respondent No.4 and had submitted his resignation from the post with the answering respondents. Still further, they submitted that the claim for contribution/liability of pro-rata pension of the service rendered by the petitioner with them is to be raised by respondents No.3 and 4 after calculation of pensi