The denial of pensionary benefits by counting past service to some employees while granting it to others similarly situated constitutes hostile discrimination according to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and individual administrative decisions cannot supersede the resolutions of the apex decision-making authority.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

The above-mentioned three writ petitions are being considered on the basis of the facts taken from CWP-1578-2020 for the sake of brevity, as these petitions raise a common question of law and involve identical issues.

2. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 03.02.2018 (Annexure P-12), whereby the benefit of past service rendered by the petitioner in PWD (B&R), Department of Haryana, w.e.f. 21.10.1992 to 08.12.2006 for the purpose of ‘qualifying service’ towards pensionary and other benefits in respondent No.3-Department has been declined illegally and arbitrarily. Further, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents to treat the service of the petitioner in PWD (B&R) Department, Haryana, w.e.f. 21.10.1992 to 08.12.2006 as ‘qualifying service’ towards pensionary and other benefits in respondent-HSVP.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the prime grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have denied the benefit of past service to the petitioners rendered by them in PWD (B&R), Department of Haryana, w.e.f. 21.10.1992 to 08.12.2006 for counting it as ‘qualifying service’ towards pensionary and other benefits in Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (respondent No.3), despite the fact that Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), is a statutory body under the administrative control of the Government of Haryana. He further submits that the respondents have been blowing hot and cold in the same breath in spite of the fact that benefit of past service rendered in another Government Department has been given to the retired employees on their superannuation and relies upon the letters/orders dated 04.02.2005, 14.10.2004, 18.11.2011 and 15.02.2005 (Annexures P-15 to P-18 respectively), in which similarly identical circumstanced employees have been granted the benefit of counting past service for the purpose of calculating the qualifying service for pensionary benefits. He further refers to letter dated 04.02.2005 (Annexure P-15), in which it has been duly mentioned that respondent No.3-HSVP in its meeting held on 28.12.2004 has approved the proposal to implement the instructions regarding counting all past services in HUDA.

3.1 Further to establish his aforesaid contention, learned senior counsel for the petitioner refers to letter dated 01.10.2004 (Annexure P-21) and submits that vide Agenda Item No.A-94 (15), the issue regarding counting of past service for the purpose of pension of the employees of the State of Haryana was considered, which was approved on 28.12.2004 vide Annexure P-20. The said approval is available on record at Page No.111 of the paper-book, whereas the Agenda is available at Page No.113 of the paper-book. As such, the petitioner cannot be subjected to hostile discrimination after granting benefit of past service to number of employees by respondent No.3-HSVP and he further refers to the judgment rendered by this Court in Pritam Chand vs. State of Haryana and others , CWP No.5644 of 2013 decided on 05.07.2022, in which the exact stand taken in the present petition was also taken the by respondent No.3-HSVP was considered and the petitioner therein was granted benefit of past service for calculating the ‘qualifying service’ for commuting pension and further submits that the aforesaid judgment has attained finality