GURDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus for counting of his service rendered with the Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') towards pensionary service in the Government Department. The petitioner's request has been opposed by the State on the ground that he was not declared as surplus by the Redeployment Cell, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Punjab and on account of the lack of notification, the employment with the Government Polytechnic College was a fresh appointment. The petitioner had served with the Technical Department for 5 years 9 months and 16 days only and, therefore, he has less than 10 years service which was a minimum period for an employee to get pension.

(2.) The petitioner had worked as Sepoy with the Indian Army from 31.03.1963 to 31.03.1978 for a period of 15 years. Thereafter, he joined the corporation on 15.01.1981 in pursuance of appointment letter dated 30.12.1980 as a Chowkidar and was successful in completing his probation period on 29.07.1981 (Annexure P -1). On account of the Corporation closing down, the Agriculture Department prepared the list of surplus employees and service record of the employees of the Corporation for adjusting as per the decision taken on 21.01.1997. As per the decision, the case of adjustment of surplus staff of the Corporation was not to be referred to the Redeployment Cell, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, as per decision taken by the Financial Commissioner Development, Punjab. This would be clear from the contents of the letter dated 24.04.1997 (Annexure P -2) addressed to the Managing Director of the Corporation also, which reads as under: - -

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the Corporation thus shutting down, he had taken employment with SRS Polytechnic for Women, Ludhiana under the Technical Department on 15.07.1997 (Annexure P -3) and was relieved on the same date and he joined the said institute on 16.07.1997 (Annexure R -3). It is, thus, apparent that there was no gap as such between the petitioner's employment with the Corporation and the respondent No. 3 -institute. The petitioner, thus, worked from 15.01.1981 to 15.07.1997, which is a period of more than 16 years and he prays for this period to be counted for the purposes of his pensionary benefits. However, it is apparent that he retired on 31.03.2003, whereas the request for the pension was only raised for the first time on 02.11.2010 (Annexure P -8).