RAMESH TULI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer made by the petitioner in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is for quashing order dated 30.9.2002 (P-3) passed by the District Education Officer (S), Ludhiana- respondent No. 3, refusing to count the service rendered by the petitioner from 17.8.1965 to 30.8.1980 in Ashoka Senior Secondary School, Sirhind Mandi, District Fatehgarh Sahib-respondent No. 5 for the purpose of grant of pension on attaining the age of superannuation. A further direction has been sought to the respondents to count the service of the petitioner as qualifying service from the date of her initial appointment i.e. 17.8.1965 to 30.8.1980, which is more than 10 years, for fulfilling the requirement of clause 8 of the 1992 Scheme of completing 10 years of service.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, which have not been disputed, are that the petitioner was selected and appointed as JBT teacher on 17.8.1965 with respondent No. 5 school and served there upto 30.8.1980. On 1.9.1980, she joined the service in the HIndi Putri Pathshala, Khanna, District Ludhiana- respondent No. 4 consequent upon her selection and appointment on the post of JBT Teacher, for which she had applied through proper channel. She could not join the service of respondent No. 4 school on 31.8.1980 because that was a holiday being Sunday. She retired from service on 30.9.2001 on attaining the age of superannuation. In the both the schools she had worked on aided post, inasmuch as, both the schools were getting 95% grant-in-aid from the Government. On 5.10.2001, the petitioner applied for payment of her retiral benefits in terms of 'the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Schools Retirement Benefits Scheme, 1992 (for brevity, 'the 1992 Scheme') after counting service rendered in respondent No. 5 school from 17.8.1965 to 30.8.1980 (P-2). Respondent No. 3 rejected her case vide impugned order dated 30.9.2002 on the ground that she has withdrawn her provident fund and resigned from service from respondent No. 5 school and, thus, she is not eligible for the grant of pension by counting her previous service rendered in respondent No. 5 school (P-3). It is claimed that since the case of the petitioner was fully covered as per clause 21 of the 1992 Scheme, therefore, she again made a request to the respondents on 15.11.2003 for counting of her past service for the purpose of grant of retiral benefits (P-4). She also gave an undertaking that she was ready to deposit the amount of Contributory Provident Fund along with interest which was withdrawn by her. Eventually, she sent a legal notice on 14.10.2004 (P-6).

(3.) Mr. P.K. Goklaney, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner fulfills all the requirements of qualifying service as provided by clause 6(1), namely, that she joined the service after attaining the age of 18 years and took charge of the aided post on regular basis. He has also invited our attention to Clause 8 of the 1992 Scheme, which provides that an employee is entitled for pension under the 1992 Scheme only after he/she completes 10 years of qualifying service. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner had joined service on 17.8.1965 and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.9.2001 and, therefore, she has completed about 36 years of regular service. He has maintained that when the scheme formed under Rule 22-A of the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Schools Employees (Security of Service), Rules, 1981 (for brevity, 'the 1981 Rules'), specifically provides that the scheme is to apply to all those who have been working on aided post on or after 5.2.1987, then the petitioner is entitled to get retiral benefits by counting her entire service as qualifying service. He has also drawn our attention to clause 21 of the 1992 Scheme which prescribes for refund of employee's share of Contributory Provident Fund. Clause 21 reads as under:-