Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 1875

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J.
Amarjit Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CWP-24322 of 2016 (O&M),CWP-1977 of 2016,CWP-15221 of 2019,CWP-14175 of 2017,CWP-6553 of 2019,CWP-8152 of 2019,CWP-8186 of 2019,CWP-10789 of 2019, CWP-12905 of 2015,CWP-1735 of 2017,CWP-25724 of 2018,CWP-35556 of 2019,CWP-36010 of 2019,CWP-23391 of 2019,CWP-37281 of 2019 and CWP-4785 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 23-05-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Shashi Kumar Rattan, Advocate, Ms. Alisha Arora, Advocate for Ms. Anju Arora, Advocate, Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate, Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for, Mr. V.K. Shukla, Advocate, Mr. Sohrab Dhanda, Advocate and Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate, Mr. B.S. Patwalia, Advocate, Mr. Saajan Singla, Advocate, Mr. Gopal Singh Nahel, Advocate, Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate, Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate and Ms. Niharika Mittal, Advocate, Mr. Satnam Singh Thakur, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. K.K.Bheniwala, Addl. A.G.Punjab., Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Advocate for, Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, Ms. Amarpreet Kaur, Advocate for, Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondent.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the total length of service is to be taken into account for computing the pensionary benefits, subject to the employee depositing the CPF for the period it was not deducted by the employer, along with interest. The court also emphasized that the denial of pension for the service rendered by an employee cannot be treated as a recurring cause of action and that the claim for pensionary benefits is not barred by limitation.

Headnote:
Pensionary Benefits - Interpretation of Rule 2(k) of the 2000 Rules - [Pensionary Benefits] - [Punjab Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Employees Pension and Provident Fund Rules, 2000] - [Rule 2(k)] - The court discussed the interpretation of Rule 2(k) of the 2000 Rules, which defines qualifying service as the service for which an employee has made contribution towards the Contributory Provident Fund before and after the commencement of the rules. The court held that the total length of service is to be taken into account for computing the pensionary benefits, subject to the employee depositing the CPF for the period it was not deducted by the employer, along with interest. The court referred to previous judgments and held that the denial of pension for the service rendered by an employee cannot be treated as a recurring cause of action and that the claim for pensionary benefits is not barred by limitation. The court also rejected the argument that the benefit of total length of service should only be granted if the employee is ineligible for pension, emphasizing that similarly situated employees should be treated equally for the grant of pensionary benefits.
Fact of the Case:

The petitions involved the question of whether the service for which the CPF has been deducted has to be taken into account as qualifying service for computing the pensionary benefits or the total length of service of an employee is to be taken into account, subject to the employee depositing the CPF for the period it was not deducted by the employer, along with interest. The petitioners sought the benefit of total length of service as qualifying service for computing the pensionary benefits and were ready to deposit the CPF for the period it was not deducted by the employer, along with interest.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the total length of service is to be taken into account for computing the pensionary benefits, subject to the employee depositing the CPF for the period it was not deducted by the employer, along with interest. The court also held that the denial of pension for the service rendered by an employee cannot be treated as a recurring cause of action and that the claim for pensionary benefits is not barred by limitation. The court rejected the argument that the benefit of total length of service should only be granted if the employee is ineligible for pension, emphasizing that similarly situated employees should be treated equally for the grant of pensionary benefits.
Issues: The issues included whether the service for which the CPF has been deducted has to be taken into account as qualifying service for computing the pensionary benefits or the total length of service of an employee is to be taken into account, and whether the denial of pension for the service rendered by an employee can be treated as a recurring cause of action or is barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the total length of service is to be taken into account for computing the pensionary benefits, subject to the employee depositing the CPF for the period it was not deducted by the employer, along with interest. The court also held that the denial of pension for the service rendered by an employee cannot be treated as a recurring cause of action and that the claim for pensionary benefits is not barred by limitation. The court rejected the argument that the benefit of total length of service should only be granted if the employee is ineligible for pension, emphasizing that similarly situated employees should be treated equally for the grant of pensionary benefits.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions and directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of the fact that they have already deposited the CPF along with interest, and to grant the benefit of total length of service as qualifying service for computing the pensionary benefits. The court also directed that the arrears, if any, will only be admissible to the petitioners for a period of 3 years and 2 months from the date of filing of the writ petition and not prior to that.

JUDGMENT

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) - CM-4881-CWP-2022

1. Prayer in the instant application is for placing on record Annexure P-12 and also for grant of exemption from filing certified and typed copy of the same.

2. Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions and Annexure P-12 is taken on record.

CWP-24322-2016 (O&M)

3. By this common order, the petitions, details of which have been given in the heading, are being disposed of, as all the petitions involve same question of law i.e. whether, keeping in view the settled principles of law, as per Rule 2(k) of the Punjab Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Employees Pension and Provident Fund Rules, 2000 (for brevity, 'the 2000 Rules'), only the service for which the CPF has been deducted has to be taken into account as a qualifying service for computing the pensionary benefits or total length of service of an employee is to be taken into account, subject to the employee depositing the CPF for the period it was not deducted by the employer, along with interest.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) argues that question of law raised in these petitions is no longer res integra as the said Rule 2(k) has already been interpreted more than once by this Court and as per the law, the petitioners are entitled for counting total length of service as qualifying service for computing the pensionary benefits subject to their depositing the CPF for the period it was not deducted by the employer, along with interest.

5. Before adverting to the law on the issue, Rule 2(k) of the 2000 Rules is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-

'2(k) qualifying service means the service of an employee of a Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishan, as the case may be, for which he has made contribution towards the Contributory Provident Fund before and after the commencement of these rules"

6. A bare perusal of the above rule would show that only the service for which the contribution towards CPF has been made, is to be taken into account as qualifying service.

7. CPF is deducted by the employer once an employee is covered under 2000 Rules. Deduction of the CPF is the duty of the employer for which no role is to be played by the employee concerned. In some cases, it was not deducted by the employer without information to the employee. The net conclusion was that at the time of retirement, the service for which the CPF was not deducted by the employer was not treated as a qualifying service so as to grant the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits for the said service of the employee. In a similar case, the said action of the respondent department of not taking total length of service into consideration for computing the pensionary benefits by applying Rule 2(k) of the 2000 Rules was challenged before this Court in CWP No.4378 of 2006 titled Sita Devi versus State of Punjab and others. This Court, by taking into consideration Rule 2(k) of the 2000 Rules held that total length of service of an employee is to be taken into account as a qualifying service and the compliance of Rule 2(k) of the 2000 Rules can be made even after retirement of the employee concerned by depositing the CPF for the period it was not deducted by the employer, along with interest.

8. The said rule again came to be interpreted by this Court in CWP No.9125 of 2011 titled Satish Rani Sood versus State of Punjab and others by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and again the Coordinate Bench interpreted Rule 2(k) of the 2000 Rules in the same manner that due to a fault of an employer in not deducting the contribution, the employee can not be penalized so as to take away the service which concededly an employee has rendered before retirement, especially when the employee is ready to deposit the contribution for the period it was not deducted and that too along with interest, which will suffice the purpose of Rule 2(k) and a direction was issued by this Court to the employer to count the total length of service as a qualifying servic