STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus HARNAM SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 377 · Decided: 17-01-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

"( 
\ 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
HARNAM SINGH AND ORS. 
JANUARY 17, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.j 
B 
~ 
S e1vice Law : 
1 
Seni01ity-Teachers-District Board and Zilla Parishad Schools-
Taken over by the Govenunent-Conditions of Takeover deed-To be treated c 
l 
as fresh entrants-High Cowt holding that the previous service rendered by 
such teachers would be counted for purposes of seniority and other 
benefits-On appeal held, as per the conditions specified in the take- over 
deed, previous se1vice wipeq out-Not entitled to take into account the 
previous se1vice for any of the benefits including pension. 
D 
~ 
State of Punjab v. Dev Dutt Kaushal, [1995] Supp. 4 SCC 748, relied 
on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 444 of 
1997. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.9.95 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 5590 of 1995. 
H.S. Munjral and Manoj Swarup for the Appellants. 
Kanwar Ashwani, Harnam Singh, J.S. Attri and Nandlal Kumar, for 
F 
the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
G 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Punjab 
& Haryana Court, made on September 13, 1995 in Writ Petition No. 
5590/95. 
, 
The admitted position is that the respondents joined the service as 
~ 
· drawing teachers in the District Boards and Zilla Parishads in Punjab H 
377 
... 
\ 
378 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 1 S.C.R. 
A during the year 1957-58. The schools were taken over by the Government 
[ 
of Punjab from District Boards and Zilla Parishads. At the time of take 
j 
over, two of the conditions enumerated in the deed of take over were : 
"3. The Government shall not be bound to take in Government 
service the members of the staff of the school and shall have full 
~ 
B 
discretion in taking over such of them in Government service as 
L 
may be considered suitable by it. (Govt.). 
4. The members of the staff who are taking in Government service 
... 
by the Government under the preceding clause shall be treated as 
c 
fresh entrants in Government service and no credit whatsoever of 
their previous service in the aforesaid school shall be allowed to 
~ 
them and their seniority vice-versa. The old Government servant 
shall be terminated accordingly." 
D 
The question, therefore, is : whether the view of the Court that the 
previous service rendered by the respondent/erstwhile teachers in District 
Boards and Zilla Parishads would be counted for the purpose of seniority 
< 
and other benefits, is correct in law? In view of the aforesaid clauses, it 
would be abundantly clear that the Government has been given discretion 
E 
to take any of the existing members into the service and if so taken, they 
shall be treated as fresh entrants into the Government service vis-a-vis the 
existing Government employees. It would be reasonable to conclude that 
the Government have taken over the sch-0ols run by the Boards and Zilla 
Parishad as Government schools with the aforesaid conditions to safeguard 
the service conditions of the existing employees of the Government vis-a-vis 
F 
the new entrants. Under those circuinstances, the Staff working in the 
former Zilla Parishad or Board :taken over by the Government would be 
>. 
treated as fresh entrants into the Government service from the date of 
taking over. Therefore, the previous service rendered by them would not 
be counted for seniority etc. It would also be clear that unless there was a 
G 
condition at the time of take over to treat the previous service of the 
employees 'as part of service under the Government service, it would not 
be counted. In other words, it will be subject to the terms of take over. 
The controversy is no longer res integra. In similar circumstances, this 
Court in State of Punjab v. Dev. Dutta Kaushal, [1995] Supp. 4 SCC 748 in 
~ 
H paragraph 8 considered the question squarely and held that : 
t
-
STATE v. HARNAMSINGH 
379 
" ........ the respondent was not entitled to any pension according to A 
the service conditions obtaining in the private college. Had the 
college not been taken over by the Government and had he retired 
in the normal course, he would not have been entitled to any 
pension. He was entitled only to contributory provident fund. It is 
only under government service that pension is provided for. But B 
such pension is available only if any employee puts in ten years of 
service under the Government. Now the gift deed does
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.