PUNJAB SCHOOL EDUCATION BOARD Vs DALIP CHAND .
Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,A.K. SIKRI
Case number: C.A. No.-007820-007820 / 2013
Diary number: 5321 / 2008
Advocates: Vs
JAGJIT SINGH CHHABRA
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.