HANS RAJ Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who had joined the Municipal Council, Noor Mehal, District Jalandhar as an Octroi Moharar on 2.2.1962 and retired from the post of Accountant on 31.1.1998, has approached this Court with a prayer to quash the Pension Payment Order (PPO), Annexure P-2, to the extent that it has taken into consideration only 18 years and five months as the qualifying service instead of 36 years for the purposes of grant of post-retiral benefits, and has sought a direction to the respondents to grant him all the post-retiral benefits on the basis of the total length of service including the service rendered by him on a non-provincialised post with effect from 2.2.1962 to 20.8.1978.

(2.) Shorn of the details, it may be mentioned that the Govt. of Punjab notified the Punjab Municipal Employees Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Pension Rules'), which came into force with effect from 1.4.1990 and were made applicable equally to those whole time regular employees also who were working immediately before the 1st day of April 1990 and who were willing to opt for these Rules. The petitioner opted to be governed by these Pension Rules. On his retirement with effect from 31.1.1998, the pensioner applied for the grant of retiral benefits like leave encashment, gratuity and pension, etc. but nothing was released thereby compelling him to approach this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 9795 of 1998. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the retiral benefits were partly released and certain amount pertaining to the pension was deposited in his pension account as a result of which the writ petition was disposed of. On a review application moved by the petitioner, a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.4.2001 directed the respondents that in case the petitioner is not paid his pension, needful shall be done within two months. It is thereafter that the PPO (Annexure P-2) was issued. The petitioner, however, was shocked to find out that the total length of service which was taken into account was nineteen years, five months and eight days out of which one year and eight days was also treated as non-qualifying service thereby leaving qualifying service of eighteen years and five months only though he had actually served from 2.2.1962 to 31.1.1998 i.e. for 36 years.

(3.) Aggrieved at the action of the respondents in not treating the entire service of the petitioner as qualifying service for the purpose of post- retiral benefits, he served the respondents with a legal notice dated 27.8.2001, Annexure P-4, a reply to which dated 18.10.2001, Annexure P-5, was received informing the petitioner that from 2.2.1962 to 22.8.1978 he worked against a non-provincialised post and that the said service could not be counted towards the "qualifying service" for releasing the retiral benefits. The petitioner has, accordingly, approached this Court again.