NAND LAL SOHAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order of mine shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 19963 of 2006, titled Tarsem Lal v. State of Punjab and others and Civil Writ Petition No. 787 of 2007, titled Nand Lal v. State of Punjab and others as the same question of law is involved in both the cases.

(2.) The petitioners are aggrieved of the orders passed by the Govt. denying them the pensionary benefits on the basis of the last pay drawn from the Bakhra Beas Management Board (hereinafter called as 'BBMB' for short).

(3.) Briefly stated the facts leading to filing of these petitions are that the petitioners were appointed as Upper Division Clerk and Clerk in the years 1964-65 respectively in the Bakhra Nagar Project in the State of Punjab. That the reorganiRs.ation of the State of Punjab took place on 1-11-1996 in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to the "1966 Act"). Both these petitioners were allocated the services of State of Punjab in terms of Section 82 of 1966 Act. In terms of the provisions of Section 79(1) of the 1966 Act, the Central Govt. constituted a Board namely Bakhra Management Board for the administration, maintenance and operation of the Bakhra Nangal Project in the State of Punjab. The petitioners were allowed to continue to serve on the project after the constitution of the board. They earned various promotions from time to time granted by the State of Punjab but the fact remains that they were never repatriated to State of Punjab and continue to work with the board so constituted. Both the petitioners retired from the services on attaining the age of superannuation. The pensionary benefits of the petitioners were fixed on the basis of the last pay drawn in the board. Petitioner Tarsem Lal filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 7220 of 2006, which was decided by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 11-5-2006 and respondents were directed to decide the representation of the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order within three months. As a consequence of the aforesaid directions, the respondents have passed the impugned order Annexure P-9, rejecting the claim of the petitioner. From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that on reorganisation, the petitioner became an employee of the State of Punjab and he earned promotion in State of Punjab where his seniority was also maintained. It is further the case of the State that the Writ Petitioner was asked to rejoin the State of Punjab but he did not comply the Govt. directions whereupon charge-sheet was served upon him, however, on consideration of his reply and personal hearing, charges were dropped. It seems that the Govt. issued instructions vide letter dated 26-11-2001 whereby it was decided to implement the judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 6768 of 1996, affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 10098 of 1997. After implementing the judgment, the State decided that where an employee was allocated State of Punjab under 1966 Act, who remained posted in BBMB and has not been reverted to the State of Punjab after 1-11-1996 on promotion or on any other ground, he shall be entitled to the benefit of the last pay drawn for the purposes of retiral benefits. Respondents in the impugned order, however, held that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid instructions and judgment in Nirmal Singh v. State of Punjab and others on the solitary ground that the petitioner was repatriated to the State of Punjab though he never joined with the State of Punjab. Respondents relied upon subsequent instructions dated 31-3-2004 where under it is provided that term of deputation of an employee will automatically expire on his attaining the age of 55 years and the employee concerned will be responsible for getting himself relieved from the BBMB and report to his parent department. It is accordingly concluded that since the petitioner never reported to the State of Punjab on expiry of such deputation in violation of the Govt. instructions, he will be deemed to be an employee of the State Govt. and thus is not entitled to the benefits of last pay drawn in BBMB.