Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jagmohan Bansal, J.
Jasdeep Singh Aulakh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CWP No. 3638 of 2023
Decided On : 24-04-2024
Pension - Service Counting - Punjab Civil Services Rules - The court interpreted Rules 3.17-A and 7.5(2) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, emphasizing that service rendered in a PSU can be counted for pension if resignation is accepted for government employment, overriding contrary administrative instructions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to have his service with the Punjab State Electricity Board counted for pension benefits after joining the Punjab Civil Services. His claim was rejected without a reasoned order, prompting legal action.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's service should be counted under the applicable rules, as his resignation was accepted and he joined government service, thus quashing the respondent's order.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's service with the Punjab State Electricity Board can be counted for pension benefits under the Punjab Civil Services Rules despite the respondent's reliance on administrative instructions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that statutory rules cannot be overridden by administrative instructions, and the petitioner's service qualifies for pension under the relevant rules.
Result: The petition is allowed, and the impugned order is quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Jagmohan Bansal, J.
The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 31.01.2023 (Annexure P-17) whereby respondent has rejected claim of the petitioner seeking counting of service rendered from 13.06.1996 to 30.06.2004 with Punjab State Electricity Board (for short ‘PSEB’) as Assistant Engineer (Electrical).
2. The petitioner on 13.06.1996 joined Punjab State Electricity Board as Assistant Engineer (Electrical). The respondent-State advertised posts of Civil Servants (Executive Branch). The petitioner applied for the post and came to be selected in PCS (Executive Branch). He made multiple representations to respondents to the effect that his service period with PSEB may be counted for pensionary benefits. The respondent by order dated 31.01.2023 (Annexure P-17) has rejected his claim. It is apt to mention here that respondent did not pass a reasoned order. For the ready reference, the said order is reproduced as below:-
With reference to your Representations dated 15.07.2022, 16.08.2022 and 17.11.2022 on the subject cited above.
After considering your Representations submitted under reference for covering the service rendered by you in the Punjab State Electricity Board under Old Pension Scheme, the same have been filed in the Office at the level of the Competent Authority.”
3. Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate submits that petitioner submitted technical resignation and it was duly accepted by Competent Authority. He vide communication dated 29.06.2004 (Annexure P-3) was permitted to join Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch). The respondent has rejected his claim without adverting with Rule 3.17-A of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II, Chapter-3 as well Rule 7.5(2) of Volume-I Part-I of Punjab Civil Services Rules (for short ‘PCS Rules’). The respondent is relying upon instructions dated 18.04.2016 and 25.04.2017 which are inapplicable to petitioner because instructions cannot override rules and further instructions were issued post joining of petitioner as PCS Officer. The respondent has counted service of similarly situated employees for the purpose of qualifying service.
4. Per contra, Mr. Pawan Kumar, DAG, Punjab submits that instructions of 2016 and 2017 are very much clear. Service rendered in a PSU may be counted for qualifying service if an employee has joined government service on account of winding up of PSU or absorption in government department. The petitioner voluntarily resigned from his parent department and thereafter joined PCS (Executive Branch) after cracking direct recruitment test.
He concedes that benefit of counting of previous service period has been extended to other officers. He further concedes that pay of the petitioner has been protected.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The conceded position emerging from the record is that the petitioner from 1996 to 2004 worked as Assistant Engineer with PSEB. He participated in the direct recruitment process of PCS (Executive Branch). He came to be selected in 2004 and joined PCS (Executive Branch). He submitted resignation to his parent department i.e. PSEB which accepted his resignation. The respondent has protected pay of the petitioner and granted claimed benefit to identically placed officers.
7. As per respondent, the service rendered by petitioner with PSEB cannot be counted because of instructions dated 18.04.2016 and 25.04.2017. The petitioner is relying upon Rules which have been framed by Governor in exercise of power conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It is a settled proposition of law that Rules framed by Governor in exercise of power conferred by Article 309 are plenary in nature. These rules are not a piece of delegated legislation. The Supreme Court
Service in a PSU can be counted for pension if resignation is accepted for government employment, regardless of contrary administrative instructions.
A government employee who resigns from service due to personal or domestic reasons without any pending disciplinary proceedings is entitled to proportionate pension under Rule 6.16(2), as the forfeit....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
