SATINDERJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By virtue of instant petition preferred under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated February 08, 2012 (P-2) passed by respondent No.2, vide which the pensionary benefits have been denied to the petitioner without counting the qualifying service from her initial date of appointment AND further issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to calculate the pensionary benefits from the date of initial appointment of the petitioner and release the pensionary benefits along with arrears with interest.

(2.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner joined her services with respondent Department on July 18, 1980 as Bal Sevika and subsequently promoted to the post of Clerk. After having rendered 28 years of service, she sought voluntary retirement, which was accepted by the Panchayat Samiti and she was allowed to voluntarily retired on June 04, 2008. She further submitted that prior to her retirement, though pension papers were submitted to respondent No.2, which were rejected by respondent No.2 vide impugned order dated February 08, 2012 (P-2). Being aggrieved, a challenge has been laid to the aforesaid order dated February 08, 2012 through the instant petition.

(3.) In response to notice of motion, respondents filed written statement/reply submitting that as far as grant of pension to the petitioner is concerned, her case is not covered in Rule 2 (k) of the Punjab Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Employees Pension and Provident Fund Rules, 2000 (R-1). Learned State counsel further submitted that in the present case, petitioner was appointed as Bal Sevika under ANP Scheme on Ad hoc basis, which was purely temporary. Neither her services were regularized nor she was promoted to the post of Clerk on 23.12.1980. Moreover, deduction of the provident fund was carried out only w.e.f. 01.02.1994. Thus, she has not completed the minimum qualifying service of 20 years, which is a precondition for the grant of benefit of pension. Otherwise also, as per Government Instructions dated 07.06.1978, qualifying service of 20 years is required for voluntary retirement, which is not even prima facie established in this case.