ROSHAN LAL Vs. HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two fold reliefs have been claimed by the petitioner in this petition. First claim is for grant of pensionary benefits in terms of the provisions contained in Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume-II and the second claim is for payment of gratuity in terms of the provisions contained in Punjab Civil Services Rules instead of the provisions contained in Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

(2.) From the facts which have come on record, it is clear that the petitioner had joined service as a Welder on 20.6.1959 in the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board. He became an employee of the State of Haryana and then of the Haryana State Electricity Board after the creation of the State of Haryana with effect from 1.11.1966; The petitioner received his due promotions during the service period and he retired as Foreman Grade-I (Special Foreman) with effect from 31.1.1993, on attaining the age of superannuation. Less than a week before his retirement, the petitioner submitted an application dated 27.1.1993 for being allowed to opt for pensionary benefits instead of the Employee's Provident Fund Scheme to which he was a contributory from 1966 to the date of his retirement. Request made by the petitioner was turned down by the competent authority and that decision was conveyed to the petitioner vide annexure P/3 dated 15.4.1993.

(3.) The petitioner has asserted that he had submitted an application as early as in the year 1984 for exercise of his option for pensionary benefits but the respondents arbitrarily turned down his request on 29.11.1984 to switch over from Employee's Provident Fund Scheme to Pension Scheme. According to the petitioner, after he started getting pay of Rs.3500/- with effect from 15.1.1986, it was legally not permissible for the respondents to deduct his contribution towards Employee's Provident Fund Scheme but the respondents continued to make deduction and this action of the respondents was wholly without jurisdiction. The petitioner has further pleaded that even after his retirement, option has been given to the employee to switch over from Employee's Provident Fund Scheme to the Pension Scheme vide Board's circular dated 6.8.1983 but that benefit has been denied to the petitioner on the spacious plea that he stood retired from 31.1.1993.