AVTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner prays for quashing of order dated 17.09.2015 (Annexure P-12) whereby it has been held that he is not entitled to pensionary benefits under the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Aided Schools Retirement benefits Scheme 1992 and 2012. Brief facts are that petitioner initially joined as SS master against aided post at JSHF Khalsa High School, Nawanshar on 01.06.1964. He worked as such till 20.09.1977. He was then appointed as Headmaster against aided post as Lt. Gen. Bikram Singh Khalsa High School, Mehndipur, District SBS Nagar on 21.09.1977. He continued on the said post till 30.04.1990. He applied for leave from 03.05.1990 to 03.11.1990 and thereafter from 04.11.1990 till 07.08.1991. Leave was duly sanctioned by the school management. He applied for further leave from 08.08.1991 till 07.08.1992. During said period, he remained on Ex-India leave. In interregnum, above said private aided school was taken over by the State government under Gift deed w.e.f. 19.08.1991. As per terms of take over, all teachers and allied staff of private aided school, who were duly qualified to hold the respective posts would be taken over and absorbed as Government servants but restricted to those who were working at the time of take over. Petitioner's name was not included in the aided staff taken over by the Government. Petitioner preferred CWP No. 3690 of 1994 praying for direction to respondents to permit him to join as Headmaster and grant him all consequential benefits. Said writ petition was dismissed on 03.01.2013 (Annexure P-2) by this Court while observing as under:-

(2.) Thereafter, petitioner raised a claim towards pension and other retiral benefits by counting his entire service rendered in two different government schools and preferred CWP No. 22927 of 2014 which was disposed of 28.11.2014 (Annexure P-11) directing competent authority to decide legal notice served by the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, impugned order dated 17.09.2015 (Annexure P-12) has been passed whereby petitioner's claim has been rejected. Aggrieved therefrom petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) In view of specific observations of this Court in decision dated 03.01.2012 (Annexure P-2), it is clear that above said contention on behalf of the petitioner is misplaced. Once scheme is introduced and specific provisions are made thereunder, it is incumbent, that they should be complied with, for any employee to be held entitled for benefit thereunder. It is fallacious to say that petitioner was not permitted to join on the post of Headmaster and, therefore, could not submit his option. He had no right to join on the said post as has been adjudicated by this Court. Said adjudication has admittedly attained finality. as mentioned above. Furthermore, it is mentioned in impugned order dated 17.09.2015 (Annexure P-12) that petitioner had given his option for contributory provident fund. He withdrew the amount along with employer's share on 10.01.2005.