Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7820 OF 2013  (Arising out of SLP(C) No.11777 of 2008)

Punjab School Education Board … Appellant

Versus

Dalip Chand and others …  Respondents

J U D G M E N T

K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The  question  that  has  come  up  for  consideration  in  this  

appeal is whether the service rendered by the respondent in the  

Department of Education, Punjab be treated as qualifying service  

for  the purpose of  pension under  the Punjab School  Education  

Board  (Employees  Pension,  Provident  Fund  and  Gratuity)  

Regulations, 1991 (for short “the Regulations 1991”).

3. The respondent-herein was recruited as clerk by the Punjab  

Subordinate Service Selection Board on 07.04.1965 and he was

Page 2

2

posted in  the Department  of  Education,  Punjab.   Later  he was  

appointed as a lecturer in Political Science in Government Senior  

Secondary  School,  Valtoha,  District  Amritsar  where  he  served  

upto  1970.   He  had  worked  as  an  assistant  in  Education  

Department from June 1970 to 08.08.1979.   

4. Punjab School Education Board on 03.05.1979 advertised for  

the post of Superintendent.  The respondent applied for the said  

post and was selected.  Appointment order dated 03.08.1979 was  

sent to him and he joined on 08.08.1979 in the service of the  

Board.  For the purpose of joining service of the Board he was  

relieved  from  the  Education  Department  in  the  forenoon  of  

08.08.1979.  After joining the service in the Board, the respondent  

was contributing CPF under the Punjab School Education Board  

(Provident Fund) Regulations, 1970, since at that time service in  

the Board was not pensionable.  Service in the Board was later  

made pensionable under the 1991 Regulations w.e.f. 01.04.1991.  

All the employees who were employed after the inception of the  

Board were asked to give option to be governed either by the

Page 3

3

Pension Regulations or by the Provident Fund Regulations.  The  

respondent opted to be governed by the Pension Regulations.

5. The respondent  retired from the service after  serving the  

Board from 08.08.1979 to 31.10.2000.  Previously, he had served  

the Education Department  for  14 years 1 month and 21 days.  

The respondent had put in a total service of 35 years 4 months  

and 14 days, reckoning both the services of the Education as well  

as the Board and respondent claimed pension under Regulation 6  

of the 1991 Regulations.

6. The claim of the respondent was rejected by the Board on  

the ground that the benefit of Regulation 6 would apply only to  

those employees who had joined the service of the Board either  

on transfer or on deputation and were subsequently absorbed in  

the Board.  Further it was pointed out that since the respondent  

was appointed neither on transfer nor on deputation but through  

direct recruitment, the service rendered by him in the Education  

Department  could  not  be  treated  as  qualifying  service  for  the  

purpose  of  pension  for  his  eligibility  to  get  pension  under  the  

1991 Regulations.

Page 4

4

7. The High Court did not find any merit in the contention of the  

Board, allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned orders  

passed by the Board on 06.07.2005 and 29.09.2005 and directed  

the  Board  to  reckon  the  service  of  the  respondent  in  the  

Education  Department  as  qualifying  service  for  the  purpose  of  

pension.   Aggrieved by the same, the Board has come up with  

this appeal

8. We notice that a similar issue came for consideration before  

this  Court  in  SLP(C)  No.11837  of  2008,  wherein  a  notification  

issued by the Board on 17.03.2011 was produced and this Court  

granted the benefit to a similarly placed pensioner.  The order of  

this Court dated 14.03.2012 passed in SLP(C) No.11837 of 2008  

reads as follows:

“I.A. No.4 of 2012 has been filed by the respondents with  a prayer to take on record Notification dated 17.03.2011  issued by the Punjab School Education Board (for short,  ‘the Board’) under which an employee shall be eligible to  add  his  service  qualifying  for  superannuation  pension,  but  not  for  any  other  pension.   It  further  shows  that  benefit can be for a maximum period of 8 years only and  not for more than 8 years.  The respondents fall within  this category.

Page 5

5

    Thus,  in the light of the subsequent Notification  dated 17.03.2011 issued by the Board, which has been  given retrospective effect and would be applicable to all  those who have been appointed before 1.1.2004 and do  not fall within the prohibited category as per the proviso  would  be  entitled  for  getting  the  necessary  benefit  thereof.  In the light of this, there is no substance in this  special  leave  petition,  which  is  accordingly  hereby  dismissed.

     The learned counsel appearing for the respondents  informed  that  in  fact  they  are  already  been  paid  pensionary benefits.”

9. We are of the view that the said notification would equally  

apply to the respondent in this case as well.  The respondent had  

already  put  in  more  than eight  years  of  service  in  the  Board,  

consequently, he is also entitled to get the benefit of notification  

dated 17.03.2011.  In the circumstances, the appeal lacks merit  

and the same is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.

…………………………….J. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

………………………………J. (A.K. Sikri)

New Delhi, September 06, 2013.