VIJAY LAXMI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners originally joined service in the Punjab State Social Welfare Advisory Board, Chandigarh. On June 21, 1974, the projects being run by the Board were taken over by the State Government alongwith the staff with effect from April 1, 1974. The short grievance of petitioners is that their service prior to april 1m 1974 is not being taken into consideration by the Respondent-State for the purpose of computing their retrial benefits. On behalf of the respondents, it has been inter-alia averred that vide order dated May 10, 1978, it had been specifically directed that "no benefit in respect of earned leave, pension etc. will be given for the service rendered by the employees before taking over the projects."

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Dadwal, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the projects where the petitioners were employed having been taken over by the State Government, the order denying them benefit of past service towards pension etc. is wholly arbitrary and unfair. On the other hand, Ms. Charu Tuli, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that it having been specifically stipulated in the order dated May 10, 1978 that the past service shall not count for pension, the petitioners have no right to claim such a benefit through this petition. She further submits that in the Social Welfare Department of the Government, no cadre of Bal Sewaks/Sewikas existed on which petitioners NOs. 1 to 6 were appointed by the Board and consequently, the relief claimed in this petition cannot be granted to them.

(3.) Indisputably, the projects etc. where the petitioners were working, had been taken over by the Government vide order dated June 21, 1974 with effect from April, 1974. At that time, it had not been stated that the petitioners shall not be given the benefit of their past service towards leave or pension, the order by which the projects were taken over is on record as Annexure P.l with the writ petition. A perusal thereof shows that the pay and allowances etc. were protected. It was nowhere mentioned that on being appointed in Government service, the petitioners will not be given the benefit of past service towards pension etc. The condition was imposed only sub-sequently. Further more, no reasons for imposing such a condition have been disclosed. The protection of pay etc. is indicative of the fact that the petitioners were not to be denied the benefit of their service on their becoming the employees of the Government. The benefit of their past service towards pay was duly protected. Once the past service has been recognised for the purpose of pay, there appears to be no justification for denying them the same benefit towards pension etc. The admitted position is that the petitioners had served the Board which is virtually an instrumentality of the State for long period ranging from 10 to 16 years before their absorption in Govt. Service. The denial of the benefit claimed by the petitioners would cause them a heavy recurring loss. It would be unfair, it would be arbitrary.