SARUP SINGH Vs. HVPN LIMITED AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who initially was an employee of Haryana State Electricity Board, now succeeded by HVPNL, was posted with BBMB against the share quota of Haryana State Electricity Board from 26.9.1968 to 31.5.2004, when he superannuated from service. Petitioner claimed that it was neither a deputation nor a foreign service, therefore, his pension was to be fixed in terms of Rule 6.24 of PCSR Vol.II as applicable to Haryana, taking into consideration his entire emoluments. The petitioner filed the present writ petition in the year 2015 i.e. after 11 years of the retirement.

(2.) Respondents in the reply have taken a stand that the pension of the petitioner was fixed on the basis of presumptive pay as per PCSR Volume II Rule 6.19 C as applicable to Haryana, as the petitioner was employee of HSEB, now succeeded by HVPNL and was posted in BBMB, as per Nigam instructions. It is further stated that as per instructions dated 31.8.1992 (Annexure R1), the pension of the employees who statutorily stood transferred to BBMB as on 1.11.1966 in terms of Section 79(4) Reorganization Act and allocated to the State of Haryana, should be fixed on the basis of emoluments drawn by them from BBMB at the time of retirement. The petitioner was appointed to the BBMB in the share quota of Haryana after 1.11.1996. Reliance has been placed on instructions dated 14.8.2002 (Annexure P2), under which, the pension of the employees who are transferred to BBMB after 1.11.1996 is to be fixed on the basis of presumptive pay which would have been admissible to them in HVPNL had they not been posted in BBMB. The respondents relied upon Rule 6.19 C.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully perused the record.