PARKASH SINGH BEDI Vs. PUNJAB UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks for computation of pension, the counting of the period of engagement as a temporary employee in the department of Botany in PL 480 Research Project from 25.09.1968 till 08.05.1976 when he had been appointed as a Photomicrographer in the department of Botany on a regular pay, as per the resolution of the Syndicate of the University. On a reference to the Pension Rules framed by the University, the learned Counsel relies on the Panjab University Employees Pension Rules, which is as follows:

(2.) The learned Counsel also submits that the service book has entered his entry into service as a temporary employee on 25.09.1968 and if he had been confirmed as a Photomicrographer on 15.05.1977 after a period of probation, it would still be considered that he was an employee from the year 1968 when he entered into service. Rule 3.1 of the Pension Rules, according to him, provides that service of an employee shall begin to qualify for pension when he takes charge of the post to which he first appointed. According to him, the first appointment was in the year 1968 and the period from 1968 to 15.05.1976 when he was appointed on a regular basis must also be counted. 3. The response on behalf of the University is that the petitioner was appointed as an employee on a project by the department of Botany and after the project was completed, the petitioner was considered afresh for appointment by the Syndicate and the recruitment rules do not provide for computing the period when he was a temporary employee on a project. The learned Counsel refers to Regulation 1.5(iii) of the Punjab University Employees Pension Scheme, which reads as follows:

(3.) A right to pension invariably obtains through an application of the relevant rules. If the validity of the rules themselves is not in challenge then the entitlement will have to be fall within the four corners of what the rules provide for. The rules have excluded the period of engagement on a project on a temporary basis for being reckoned for the purpose of pension. The petitioner cannot, therefore, seek for such a right by drawing inferences from how a period of engagement as a work charged employee could also be reckoned under some specified contingencies. An employee on a project cannot avail to such a status and the rejection of the claim by the authorities was, therefore, justified.