After 34 years of service, retired employee wins pension battle in Punjab and Haryana High Court

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar pointed out that administrative orders cannot be modified at will, particularly when they have serious civil consequences for an individual.

The high court was hearing a plea filed by Kamaljeet Singh challenging orders dated October 27 and December 2, 2021, whereby his claim for pension and other retiral benefits from the date of his retirement on June 30, 2016, was rejected.

‘Conduct of officer can’t go unchecked’ 

• The high court observed that it could not allow the conduct of the executive officer of the municipal council, who passed two contradictory speaking orders on the same issue within a span of two months, to go unchecked.
• It noted that the petitioner’s claim for pension was initially rejected on the ground that he had failed to exercise the requisite option or deposit the required contribution under the applicable pension rules.
• However, the very same officer later altered the basis of rejection and stated that the petitioner was not an employee of the municipal council at all and was therefore ineligible for pensionary benefits.
• The high court noted that both the orders were passed by the said executive officer, and are merely two months apart. 
• It was held that such conduct not only indicates non-application of mind but also a lack of knowledge with respect to the functioning of a state instrumentality. 
• The court emphasised that administrative orders cannot be modified at will, particularly when they have serious civil consequences for an individual.
• Finding no justification for issuing two different orders on the same issue, the court set aside both orders.
• The municipal council was also directed to inform the petitioner of the exact amount required to be refunded towards the contributory provident fund (CPF) benefits already availed by him so that pension and other pensionary benefits could be released. 
• The court added that the same should be done within four weeks.

34 years of service 

The petitioner was appointed with the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board as a rigman on October 9, 1980. Later, the designation was changed to ‘pump operator’. Subsequently, his services were regularised by an order dated February 29, 1991. 

He was also promoted to the post of junior technician later. However, the municipal council subsequently passed a resolution in May 1998 in which the maintenance work carried out by the board was taken over by the Council.

Then, by a resolution dated May 30, 1998, the permanent employees of the board, including the petitioner, forming a part of the maintenance staff, were also absorbed by the council. Accordingly, the petitioner started working for the council from April 24, 1998, on a regular pay scale. 

The petitioner retired from the said council on June 30, 2016, upon attaining the age of retirement. However, he was not granted any pension or pensionary benefits. 

Following a legal notice and court proceedings, the municipal council’s executive officer passed an order in October 2021 rejecting the pension claim on the ground that the petitioner had failed to exercise the requisite option and deposit contributions under the pension rules. 

However, just two months later, the same officer issued another order rejecting the claim on a completely different ground, stating that the petitioner was not an employee of the municipal council at all. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Service deserves to be counted

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Amit Kaith argued that despite rendering a total service of 34 years, eight months and 20 days, the claim of the petitioner for pension and pensionary benefits was denied by the said council. 

It was asserted that the service rendered by the petitioner in the said board deserves to be counted towards qualifying service.

It was further added that the petitioner was recognised as an employee of the said council since his absorption in 1998. 

Additionally, it was pointed out that the petitioner had a legitimate expectation for the grant of pension and other retirement benefits as the said council is a pensionary establishment. 

Non-pensionary establishment

Additional advocate general Vikas Sonak argued that the petitioner retired in 2016 and only agitated his claim for pension and pensionary benefits five years later in 2021 by serving a legal notice. 

He added that the petitioner has not approached this court on time, and on this ground alone, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 

It was further added that the board is a non-pensionary establishment, and no relief was claimed from it.