SOM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant served as a P.T.I with a qualifying service of 16 years with a privately aided BLD Janta Middle School, Jahidpur Kamlooh (Hoshiarpur), when he had to submit an application for being relieved from service on 18.10.1990 because of deteriorating health. The appellant was entitled to the refund of the contributory provident fund along with interest. On his application for the same having been accepted and he having been relieved from service, the said contributory fund along with interest was paid to him on 19.12.1995.

(2.) The appellant opted for the Punjab Privately Managed Recognized Aided Schools Retirement Benefit Scheme, 1992 (for short, "the Pension Scheme") vide representation dated 12.08.1994. However, when the said representation was not decided, the appellant submitted further representations dated 02.11.1996 and 09.06.1998 (Annexures P-4 and P-5), followed by a legal notice dated 08.03.2010 (Annexure P-6). When in spite of all this, no decision was taken, he filed Civil Writ Petition No. 8439 of 2010 (Som Singh v. State of Punjab and others), which was disposed of on 10.05.2010 by this court with a direction to the respondents to consider the legal notice. The said legal notice was decided by the respondents, rejecting the claim of the appellant, holding him ineligible for grant of pension vide order dated 31.08.2010, which was challenged by the appellant through the writ petition. On considering the claim of the appellant, the writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge vide judgment dated 11.04.2014, upholding the stand of the respondents that the appellant could not be granted pension as he had neither attained the age of 50 years nor had completed 25 years of qualifying service on the date when he had submitted his request for being relieved from service and, thus, being ineligible under the Pension Scheme, was dis-entitled to the benefit of same. The present appeal has been filed, challenging the decision of the learned single Judge.

(3.) The relevant Clauses 4, 5, 6(4), 8, 9 and 17, which are in issue in the present case, read as under: