State Of Punjab v. Gurkeerat Singh .

S.S Nijjar, J.:— I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

2. It has been vehemently argued by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Punjab that since the respondent had not put in 20 years service at the time when he submitted his resignation on 18.2.1975, he could not have been given the benefit of pension. In support of this submission, learned counsel relied on Rule (3)(a) of Appendix 22 of Punjab Civil Service Rule, Volume-II. He also relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar, (2001) 4 SCC 309 in support of his submission that pension cannot be granted contrary to the rules.

3. I am not impressed by the submissions of learned Additonal Advocate General. A perusal of paragraph 15 of the judgment of the trial Court shows that the appellant has even granted pension to a Constable, named, Ranjit Singh, No. 1312.PTA, who had put in only 15 years of service at the time he left the service.

4. The lower appellate Court has upheld the findings given by the trial Court. In similar circumstances, the Supreme Court granted the retiral benefits in the case of Sudhir Chandra Sarkar v. The Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited, 1984 (1) All India Services Law Journal, 575. A Single Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Ganga Bishan v. State of Haryana, 1994 (4) SLR 59 considered the question as to whether a person, who has served less than 20 years can be denied the retiral benefits. After considering the entire matter, it has been held as follows:—

“The grant of pension and gratuity is governed by the provisions of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Vol. II Rule 6.16(1) provides the scale of service gratuity admissible to a person, who retires before completing qualifying service of ten years Similarly, in 6.16(A) provision for the payment of gratuity to the retiring government servants has been made. As for pension, Rule 6.16(2) inter-alia provides that in the case of a government employee who at the time of retirement has rendered qualifying service of ten years or more but less than thirty-three years, the amount of pension shall be in such proportion of (to) the maximum, admissible pensions the qualifying service rendered by him bears to the maximum qualifying service of thrity-three years, subject to a minimum of Rs. 375/- per mensem”. It is thus clear that a person becomes entitled to the grant of pension on completion of ten years qualifying service. It is the admitted position in the present case that the petitioner had served for a total period of 18 years, 5 months and 15 days. Consequently, he was entitled to the grant of pension in viiew of the provisions of Rule 6.16(2). He was also entitled to the grant of gratuity in accordance with the provisions of the Rules. In view of these provisions, the claim of the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of pension and gratuity as he had not completed 20 years of service cannot be sustained. It is also the admitted position that the amount of money admissible to the petitioner under the Group Insurance Scheme has not yet been determined and the case is under consideration.”

5. A perusal of the aforesaid shows that this Court has already granted pension to a person who had spent only 18 years, 5 months and 15 days in service. In the present case, admittedly, the respondent had served the department from 3rd of October, 1955 till 18th of February, 1975, which makes the total service of 19 years and 4 months. Therefore, he would have been only eight months short, even if the rules were to be interpreted as vehemently projected by the learned Additional Advocate General. This interpretation would be contrary to the interpretation given by this Court in the case of Ganga Bishan (supra). After considering the relevant rules it has been held that a person becomes entitled to the grant of pension on completion of 10 years qualifying service. I find that both the Courts have taken a very humanitarian approach. Substantial justice has been done between the parties.

6. In my view, no substantial question of law has been raised.

7. Dismissed.

8. Petition dismissed.