PUNJAB SCHOOL EDUCATION BOARD Vs. SATNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal arises out of the judgment and order dtd. 14/1/2020 passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in LPA No. 1902 of 2017 (O&M). The controversy in the instant Appeal concerns the entitlement of the respondent-employees of the appellant, the Punjab School Education Board; For short, "PSEB"., to have their pre-regularization service counted as qualifying service for pension, and to therefore be governed by the old pension scheme rather than the new Defined Contributory Pension Scheme, which was introduced on 1/1/2004.

(2.) The appellant-Board is an autonomous body established under the Punjab School Education Board Act, 1969; For short, "PSEB Act".. The respondents and others similarly situated were first engaged by the appellant-Board as Clerks and Peons (later promoted to Junior and Senior Assistants) between 1993 and 1996 on a contract/ad-hoc/daily wage/work-charge basis, initially for periods of 89 days.

(3.) The litigation history of the matter at hand is somewhat tortuous. In short, what transpired was that, initially, in CWP No. 1046 of 1994, the High Court by order dtd. 30/5/1994 directed that contractual appointments would not continue beyond six months or until regular appointments to the posts were made, whichever was earlier. It was further directed that ad hoc appointments against the advertised posts would not continue beyond six months.