‘Pay pension to widow’: Punjab and Haryana High Court notes man’s 17 years of ‘temporary’ service for payout

The order added that the contention that the past service of the husband of the petitioner, i.e., the services rendered by him before regularisation, cannot be counted towards qualifying service for the grant of pensionary benefits is liable to be rejected.

Temporary work, regularisation and retirement

The petitioner challenged the PSPCL after the department rejected the pension claims of her husband, who had passed away, the Punjab and Haryana High Court noted.

The husband of the petitioner was appointed with the respondent department on a work-charge basis on May 5, 1987. He worked in this capacity till September 29, 2004, and was ultimately regularised as an assistant lineman on September 30, 2004, after serving 17 years before regularisation. Hereafter, he sought premature retirement by giving a three-month notice to the respondent department. The request of the husband of the petitioner was accepted, and he voluntarily retired in October 2010.

Following his voluntary retirement in 2010, he made an application for the release of retirement benefits and a monthly pension. The department claimed he had only six years and 10 months of regular service, which was less than the 10-year minimum required for a pension.

Petitioner’s case

• The petitioner’s counsel, advocate Jagjeet Singh, submitted before the Punjab and Haryana High Court that he voluntarily retired prematurely in October 2010, causing the respondent department to wrongly infer that he had only rendered six years and 10 months of service.
• He argued that in doing so, the respondent department has illegally ignored the 17 years and four months of service rendered on a work-charge basis, which is contrary to the judgment rendered by the full bench of this court in Kesar Chand v State of Punjab and others, the division bench in Harbans Lal v State of Punjab as well as respective co-ordinate benches in Om Prakash v Punjab State Power Corporation Limited.
• He further contended that not only did the husband of the petitioner serve the respondent department for a total of 23 years, 4 months, 17 days, but he had also duly deposited the amount of Rs 1,87,796, as demanded, towards EPF; and yet his claim for retirement benefits was denied.

Court’s findings

• Having heard the counsels for the parties and after perusing the records, the Punjab and Haryana High Court said it transpires that the husband of the petitioner, since deceased, was denied pensionary benefits by the respondent department vide, citing his failure to fulfil the qualifying service of 10 years.
• The point of contention between the parties appears to be whether or not the service rendered by the deceased employee ought to be counted towards qualifying service for pensionary benefits, once he had been regularised.
• Upon retirement, the deceased employee had made an application seeking release of retirement benefits, in response to which the respondent department requested him to deposit the due amount towards EPF.
• He made the requisite deposit, post which, his case remained pending with the respondent department for final decision, the Punjab and Haryana High Court noted.