LexPUNJAB SCHOOL EDUCATION BOARD versus DALIP CHAND AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2013) 9 S.C.R. 688 PUNJAB SCHOOL EDUCATION BOARD v. DALIP CHAND AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No.7820 of 2013) SEPTEMBER 06, 2013 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.) SERVICE LAW: c Service qualifying for pension - Service in Punjab Education Department - Reckoning of for pension on superannuation from Punjab School Education Board - Held: Employee is entitled to get benefit of Notification dated 17.03.2011 issued by Punjab School Education Board and D shall be eligible to add his service qualifying for superannuation pension -- Punjab School Education Board (Employees Pension, Provident Fund and Gratuity) Regulations, 1991 --Regulation 6. The respondent prior to his selection as E Superintendant in Punjab School Education Board on 08.08.1979, had worked in Department of Education, Punjab from 7 .4.1965 upto 08.08.1979. On his superannuation w.e.f. 31.10.2000 from the School Education Board, he claimed pension by reckoning his F both the services, i.e. service in Education Department and that in School Education Board. His claim was rejected on the ground that since he was appointed neither on transfer nor on deputation but was appointed through direct recruitment, the service rendered by him G in Education Department could not be treated as qualifying service for pension. However, his writ petition was allowed by the High Court. Dismissing the appeal filed by the Board, the Court H 688 PUNJAB SCHOOL EDUCATION BOARD v. DALIP 689 CHAND HELD: The respondent had already put in more than A eight years of service in the Board, consequently, he is also entitled to get the benefit of Notification dated 17 .03.2011, which prescribe that an employee shall be eligible to add his service qualifying for superannuation pension. [Para 8 and 9) [691-C-G] B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7820 of 2013. From the Judgment and Order dated 03.05.2007 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. c 6259 of 2006. S.K. Sabharwal, Nishtha Chawla, Prahlad Kumar for the Appellant. Subhash Chander Pathala, Jagjit singh Chhabra, Yash Pal Dhingra for the Respondents. D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 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 E 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"). F 3. The respondent-herein was recruited as clerk by the Punjab Subordinate Service Selection Board on 07.04.1965 and he was 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 G 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 H 690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R. A 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 B 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 c were employed after the inception of the Board were asked to give option to be governed either by the 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 D Board from 08.08.1979 to 31.10.2000. Previously, he had served the Education Department for 14 years 1 moAth and 21 days. The respondent had put in a total service ~f 35 years 4 months and 14 days, reckoning both the services of the Education as well as the Board and respondent claimed E pension under Regulation 6 of the 1991 Regulations. 6. The claim of the respondent was
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.