Ajaib Singh Mehta v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 14.02.2024
1. LPA No. 1099 of 2021 Er. Ajaib Singh Mehta .....Appellant versus Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others .....Respondents
2. LPA No. 1100 of 2021 Er. Prem Singh Shahi .....Appellant versus Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others .....Respondents
3. LPA No. 1101 of 2021 Er. Yash Pal Munjal .....Appellant versus Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others .....Respondents
4. LPA No. 1102 of 2021 Er. Ram Asra Singh Sian .....Appellant versus Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others .....Respondents
5. LPA No. 1103 of 2021 Er. Balwant Singh Sodhi .....Appellant versus Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI, JUDGE Present :
Mr. H.S.Saini, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Sehajbir Singh, Advocate with Mr. Baltej Singh Walia, Advocate for
Ms. Diya Sodhi, Advocate, for the respondent<PSPCL. Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ****
CM No. 2565-LPA-2021 in LPA No. 1099 of 2021 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 25 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of.
All these appeals filed by the appellants are directed against the impugned order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petitioner<Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (for short 'the Corporation'), (now respondent No.1), has been given liberty to claim the proportionate share of the liability from the Central Government of India and its institutions by re<calculating the same and the admissible liability under the Rules will be reimbursed by the respondents<institutions within a period of four months, as undertaken by the learned counsel for the respondents, namely, State of Punjab; Union of India; Chief General Manager, Telecom and Deputy General Maintenance and General Maintenance, Tel Exchange. 2.
Apparently, the Corporation was aggrieved against the rejection of its demand regarding the proportionate share of the pension and other retiral benefits of the employee, namely, Er. Ajaib Singh Mehta, which it had calculated at Rs.1,24,854/< vide communication dated 21.05.2014 (Annexure P<11), who apparently had worked with respondent No.4 from 14.05.1972 to 19.01.1975. The said communication was issued in pursuance of the order passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 9029 of 2013 filed by the Corporation, decided on 14.02.2014, whereby the order dated 30.09.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 5187
of 2011 titled
, in favour of the employee had been upheld. In response thereof, vide letter dated 12.03.2015 the Corporation received only Rs.1707/< against the pension liability of the said employee. Resultantly, the Corporation wrote back returning the said amount and re<demanded the original amount of Rs.1,24,854/<. The challenge thus was with regard to the paltry amount remitted vide letter dated 12.03.2015. 3.
The learned Single Judge, while noting the history of the litigation, which had started and consistently followed as the first order was passed on 12.09.2008 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 115 of 2006
had passed a detailed order on 05.10.2010 in Civil Writ Petition No. 12278 of 2010 ( !
and directed the Corporation to verify the services rendered by the appellants in the Government of India/other organizations. Upon verification if the services rendered by the employees, if found to be covered under the Government Instructions dated 31.03.1982, the benefit of such services was to be granted to them towards the "# $ within a period of two months. On the other hand, a direction was also issued that the Government of India/its agencies/other boards will also be at liberty to verify the service particulars of the employees and intimate the Punjab State Electricity Board in this regard and reimburse to the PSEB their proportionate share in lump sum towards the pension and other benefits payable to the employees.
4.
The said order was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in a lead case i.e. Letters Patent Appeal No. 169 of 2012, decided on 17.10.2012, arising out of Civil Writ Petition No. 6085 of 2007 by placing reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in
!". It is to be noticed that
the matter was further upheld by the Apex Court vide order dated 14.02.2014 passed in Special Leave to Appeal Civil No. 12028 of 2009 (Annexure P<8). In
(supra), the following observations were made by the Apex Court:< "
!
"#$ #%&
'( %)#$ "
% !
%# ' '##
*'#% $%&
)% %
)% ! + & (#% )%!
%
# " %%-
'( ! + &
)%
"
'/( !
*'#% %
& " %
'#
'/( - -
!
/%& #%
"
%#'
% % ! + &
)%
% !% 0
& " %- &
)%
% ! + & "%$ ' % 01
"
0 !
" %(#
)%2 5.
The inter<se battle between the Corporation and the agencies continued regarding the non<disbursement of the amount and the appellant< employees were arrayed as respondents. Passing observations as such have been made, which are in consonance of the earlier observations that the verification is to be done and in case it is found that the entitlement of the employee is not there, the Corporation has been given the benefit to reclaim the amount from the employee. The necessary protection as such to grant opportunity of hearing to the employees on passing appropriate orders has also been left open. The same was done only in the facts and circumstances that credentials of the employees and whether they have worked or not with the Government of India or its organizations which had to be taken into account even by noting that the plea on behalf of the said agencies was belated. The
relevant observations made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 17.01.2020, which are objected to by the employees, are as under:< "4'
- -
$ % "' !%
& ' ! % " %
"% ( # ,%
%
%'% '#%#$- %
,%
%
%'%
#%(#
%('
'## '
(%& #%
' !
& #'#%
' "% " % !
)
() %# "#$- " % !%## ( !% % %
/'
%%
#%
% '
"#$- !% #! ,
#
- " %
#% '
"#$ -
#$ (
%& ' "" '%$ %&
% "#$
"
%& ""
"
%
& ' #
"
'
#%( $ ( &%)
"
" ) % $ %#
## "#$
!
$ ) ! +
!% ,%
%
&%5% -
! % $ ) ( "% ( #% " %
%('
'
+
'
%- "#$ 6
'%
!% ,%
%
%'% +%& + #%
& 7
'
" % ($ %#- # !%## ( #%( $ %%% "
"
% &% "#$ %
6
! + !%
" ('
%##
%) ( %
'""
%& '#
- ' %$ !%## ( !% % %
/'
%%
)
7
' "
%
)%#(#2
6. We are of the considered opinion that the liberty which has been given is to ensure the interest of the Corporation in case the agencies in the Union of India totally deny the service period of the said employees with the agencies. It is only in such circumstances the window has been kept open, which has also been noticed by the learned Single Judge on an earlier occasion while passing the order dated 05.10.2010 in Civil Writ Petition No. 12278 of 2010. The same reads as under:<
9:%;
01 6!
## ( %# ) % $
)%
% ) (
"%%
,%6
< &%5% !% % % '
, '" ) % %%-
)%
"%%
( )
'%
=
"
3=3- ( %
'
)%
## ( & "%%
!
>*'#% $%&
)%?
!% % % !
@ %%;
,%6%
&% 6
## # ( #%( $ ) % $
)% " %'#
"%%
%% 01
%
&
%('
01
%
"
" %
#'"
' !
" %
% # ( %
"$(# "%%
!% % %
%7 2 7.
In such circumstances, we do not find any plausible explanation to entertain all these appeals at the instance of the employees. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed. 8.
Needless to say that if any show cause notice is issued, the above< said observations obviously will not come in their way as each and every individual will have a separate defence and justification on the basis of service in case his claim is found to be incorrect.
(G.S.SANDHAWALIA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (VIKAS SURI)
!""!"
ravinder Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No