PRABHA CHAWLA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner who was earlier an employee of the respondent no. 1/State of Haryana, and who was thereafter absorbed permanently by the respondent no. 2/Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) w.e.f. 23.8.1988, seeks two reliefs in the alternative. First relief which is claimed is that services of the petitioner with the respondent no. 1/State of Haryana should be combined with the services rendered by the petitioner with the respondent no. 2/IGNOU for the purpose of giving petitioner benefit of combined services as per the circular dated 22.8.1988 issued by the State of Haryana. The second relief which is claimed is that though petitioner has been absorbed by the respondent no. 2 w.e.f. 23.8.1988, however petitioner should still get service benefits from respondent no. 1/State of Haryana from 23.8.1988 till 5.1.1993 on the ground that respondent no. 1 has been time and again shifting its stand of changing the dates of the retirement of the petitioner from 1993/1992/1991 and finally as on 22.8.1988. In order to understand and appreciate as to whether petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the circular dated 22.8.1988 the relevant portion of the same needs to be referred to and the same reads as under: -

(2.) A reading of the relevant portion of the circular dated 22.8.1988 shows that there can be joinder of services provided three things happen. Firstly, the petitioner shall exercise the option of joinder of services of earlier employer with the later employer within one year of joining of the later employer and which later employer is IGNOU in this case. Petitioner therefore had to exercise the option within one year from 23.8.1988. The second requirement which is required to be fulfilled is that petitioner must not receive the employer's provident fund share from the earlier employer/State of Haryana when the services with such earlier employer comes to an end. Thirdly, the employer's share of the provident funds must be directly paid from the earlier employer to the later employer.

(3.) I have recently in the case of Prof. R. Chandra Vs. GNCT of Delhi and Ors. in W.P. (C) No. 916/2011 decided on 12.9.2013 had an occasion to consider a similar issue in terms of para 6 (3) (b) (ii) of Appendix 7 of CCS (Pension) Rules, and which circular is nearly identical to the circular dated 22.8.1988 in the present case. In the said case on account of the fact that employer preferred to directly receive the employer's share of provident fund benefits from the earlier employer directly into the employee's account and utilized the same, instead the employer's share of provident fund being directly transferred to the second employer, consequently the benefit of joinder of services for pension was denied. The relevant paras of this judgment are paras 1 to 3, 5 and 7 and the same read as under: -