Sarita Rani 2025.01.20 16:58 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.1396 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007401 CWP No.5634 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007403 2. By way of these writ peons filed under Arcle 226/227 of the Constuon of India, peoners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of cerorari for quashing the impugned order dated 24.07.2012 (Annexure P.14) and order dated 27.05.2013 (Annexure P.15) passed by respondent No.4, to be patently illegal arbitrary and unconstuonal, whereby the peoner has been treated as a new entrant in the service of Municipal Corporaon, Paala w.e.f. 17.03.2006 by ignoring his previous service rendered under respondent No.5 and by applying new Contributory Pension Scheme on the peoner implemented w.e.f. 01.01.2004, thereby denying his entlement for release of gratuity and other reral benefits a-er his rerement by counng his previous service rendered under respondent No.5. Peoner further prays to direct the respondents not to treat the peoner as a new entrant in service; and to grant him benefit of old pension scheme by taking into consideraon his previous service rendered under respondent No.5 for the purpose of pension and other reral benefits. 3.1 Peoner was inially appointed as Chowkidar on temporary basis under Work Charge Rules in 1975 in Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporaon Limited (herein aer referred as ‘PSIEC’) – respondent N: 5. Services of the peoner were regularised in February, 1997 and then vide an order dated 13.01.2006, his services were transferred to Municipal Corporaon, Paala – respondent N: 3 along with 21 other employees. Later on, consequent to the resoluon dated 31.05.2006 (Annexure P.7) passed by Municipal Corporaon, Paala for absorpon of the peoner and other similar employees transferred from PSIEC, necessary approval was granted by respondent No.1 – State of Punjab vide le<er dated 15.11.2006 (Annexure P.9). Respondent No.5 – PSIEC then transferred the gratuity amount of the peoner and other similar employees to Municipal Corporaon, Paala for the services rendered in PSIEC. Respondent No.5 also sent its share of leave encashment of employees to the Municipal Corporaon, Paala. 3.2 Peoner then made a representaon for deducon of his pension contribuon and for grant of benefit of pension under the old Sarita Rani 2025.01.20 16:58 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.1396 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007401 CWP No.5634 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007403 Pension Scheme by counng his previous service rendered in PSIEC. However, the claim of the peoner was declined vide impugned le<er dated 24.07.2012 (Annexure P.14) on account of some alleged agreement between respondents No.3 and 5. Therea-er, claim of the peoner was referred to respondent No.4 – Deputy Controller, Local Audit, MC, Paala, who passed another order dated 27.05.2013 (Annexure P.15) declining the claim of the peoner for payment of gratuity and counng of his previous service, by treang him as new entrant in service of municipal corporaon w.e.f. 17.03.2006. Peoner rered on 30.06.2016. 3.3 The grievance put forth by the peoner is that a-er his inial appointment on work-charge basis followed by regularisaon in February, 1997, he was transferred to Municipal Corporaon, Paala against a regular sanconed post and on his transfer, he was absorbed in the services of the Municipal Corporaon against regular sanconed post and, therefore, he is entled to counng of his previous service rendered in PSIEC before his transfer and absorpon in Municipal Corporaon, Paala for the purpose of his pensionary benefits on deposit of employer's share of Provident Fund Contribuon. Peoner has alleged that acon of the respondents to be in violaon of Rule 2 (j) of the Punjab Municipal Employees Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1994. 4.1 In their reply, respondents No.1 and 2 submit that the post of Chowkidar is non-provincialised Cadre, of which Municipal Corporaon, Paala is the competent appoinng/ punishing authority and that no acon of respondents No.1 and 2 is under challenge. 4.2 As per the reply filed by respondent No.4, the claim of the peoner is not tenable, as he was employee of PSIEC and he along with other employees joined the service of Municipal Corporaon, Paala on 17.03.2006. It is contended that as per the agreement signed between Commissioner, Municipal Corporaon, Paala and Chief Engineer PSIEC (Annexure P.17), date of appointment of the employee is to be considered from the date of joining the Municipal Corporaon, Paala i.e. 17.03.2006 Sarita Rani 2025.01.20 16:58 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.1396 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007401 CWP No.5634 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007403 and so, the benefit of previous service of PSIEC is not admissible to these employees. Respondent No.4 has thus defended the impugned orders dated 24.07.2012 (Annexure P.14) and dated 27.05.2013 (Annexure P.15). 4.3 Respondent No.5 – PSIEC concedes that services of the peoner were regularised and then the same were transferred to the Municipal Corporaon, Paala. 4.4 In separate reply filed by respondent No.3 - Municipal Corporaon, Paala, it is submi<ed that a-er his transfer from PSIEC, the services of the peoner were absorbed in Municipal Corporaon, Paala on 17.03.2006 vide an agreement Annexure R.3/1. It is submi<ed that during course of audit of another employee, respondent No.4 - the Deputy Controller (Local Audit) vide impugned le<er dated 27.05.2013 (Annexure P.15) raised objecon that since in the present case, the official (peoner) was merged in the services of Municipal Corporaon on 17.03.2006, therefore, his date of appointment was to be treated from the date of merger. It is also submi<ed that Punjab Government has implemented Contributory Pension Scheme from 01.01.2004, under which Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume II are not applicable to the employees appointed a-er 01.01.2004. It is also the contenon of this respondent that no pension scheme was applicable to the peoner in his parent department and that the peoner cannot be granted any benefit of Punjab Municipal Corporaon Employees' pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1994, which are applicable to the employees, who are appointed on or a-er 1st day of April, 1990. 4.5 Thus, all the respondents have opposed the claim of the peoner. 5. This Court has considered submissions of both the sides and have perused the paper book. 6. This is not in dispute that the peoner was inially appointed to the post of Chowkidar in PSIEC on temporary basis under work-charge rules way back in August, 1975. Services of the peoner along with others Sarita Rani 2025.01.20 16:58 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.1396 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007401 CWP No.5634 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007403 were regularised by PSIEC vide an office order dated 19.02.1997 (Annexure P.3). The services of the peoner along with 21 other employees were later on transferred from PSIEC, Chandigarh to Municipal Corporaon, Paala vide Office Order dated 13.01.2006 (Annexure P.6). Later on, resoluon was passed by the Municipal Corporaon, Paala to absorb these employees of PSIEC and approval was granted by the government as per le<er dated 15.11.2006 (Annexure P.9). It is further evident that amount of gratuity and leave encashment of the peoner and other employees was transferred to Municipal Corporaon, Paala as per le<ers dated 15.03.1997 and 18.10.2007 (Annexure P.10 and P.11) respecvely. 7. The queson to be considered is whether the services rendered by the peoner in PSIEC is liable to be counted for the pensionary benefits as is claimed by him; or whether he is to be treated as a new entrant w.e.f. 17.03.2006 as per the stand of respondent No.3. 8. The Punjab Municipal Employees Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1994 are applicable to the employees of the Commi<ee, who were appointed on or a-er first day of April, 1990 on whole me regular basis; and who were working immediately before first day of April, 1990 on whole me regular basis. Rule 2(j) of the Rules 1994 (ibid) provides as under:- “(j) ‘Qualifying service’ means the service rendered under a commi<ee for which an employee is paid from the municipal fund and shall include any service rendered under the Government of Punjab, an Improvement Trust, a Corporaon or any other Public Sector Undertaking immediately before joining the service.” 9. It is, thus, clear that qualifying service not only includes the service rendered by an employee under the Commi<ee, but also includes any service rendered by such an employee either under the Government of Punjab, or an Improvement Trust, or a Corporaon or any Public Sector undertaking immediately before joining the service. 10. Since in the present case, before joining at Municipal Corporaon, Paala – respondent No.3 in 2006 upon his transfer, the Sarita Rani 2025.01.20 16:58 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.1396 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007401 CWP No.5634 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007403 peoner was working with respondent No.5 - Corporaon, therefore, the service rendered by him with respondent No.5-Corporaon is to be included within the meaning of ‘qualifying service’ for the purpose of pensionary benefits. 11.1 Similar issue was also considered by this Court in CWP No.27403 of 2013 tled as “Om Parkash v. State of Punjab and others”, decided on 07.12.2023. In that case, peoner had sought the relief of counng his qualifying service rendered with Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporaon (PUNSUP) from 12.10.1978 for the purpose of pension. This Court referred to “Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab and others”, 2015(3) SCT 683, wherein it was held as under:- “6. Thus, the order dated 03.08.2010, fixing the pension of the peoner without counng his earlier service with PUNSUP is illegal. The resignaon submi<ed to the PUNSUP will not wash away the earlier service of the peoner for the purpose of counng service in the la<er department towards pension etc. It is held that the earlier service from 11.04.1975 to 19.07.1993 of the peoner be counted towards pension etc. 7. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 03.08.2010, is quashed and the respondents are directed to re-consider and decide the case of the peoner in the light of the judgments in Smt. Krishna Khullar’s and Ram Singh’s case (supra), within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a cerfied copy of this judgment. In case, the peoner is found entled to any consequenal monetary benefit, the same shall be released to him forthwith.” 11.2 This Court in Om Parkash’s case (supra) also referred to “State of Haryana and another v. Shadi Lal Malik (deceased through his LRs) and others”, 2014(4) SCT 713 and then held as under:- “9. Taking note of the aforesaid aspects, this Court in Mohan Lal’s case (supra) by relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Gurmail Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, 1992 (7) SLR 744, allowed the writ peon of the peoners therein by holding that the services rendered by the employees in a corporaon fully funded and administered by the Sarita Rani 2025.01.20 16:58 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.1396 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007401 CWP No.5634 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007403 State of Haryana are to be counted with the number of years of service rendered by them in a department of the government to consider their eligibility for grant of pension. 10. In view of the above, even an employee who worked with the State Autonomous Body and controlled by the State Government, would have to be given the benefit of his service rendered by him there for the purpose of counng the qualifying service. 11. The peoner was appointed on regular basis and, therefore, the said period of service is liable to be counted. The similar issue has already been decided in Mohan Lal’s case (supra). 12. In view thereto, the writ peon deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to count the said period of service for the purpose of qualifying service for pension and accordingly the pension of the peoner shall be revised and the payment shall be released. It is made clear that the gratuity which the peoner received for the period of service rendered with the PUNSUP, has to be deposited back/adjusted while calculang the arrears of revised pensionary benefits. Exercise shall be done within three months henceforth.” 11.3 The aforesaid decision of learned Single Judge has been upheld by the Hon’ble Division Bench in LPA No.2445 of 2024 tled ‘State of Punjab & Others vs. Om Prakash & Others’ decided on 04.10.2024. 12. Respondent No.3 has opposed the claim of the peoner on account of an agreement between the Chief Engineer, PSIEC (respondent No.5) and the Commissioner, Municipal Corporaon, Paala, the copy of which is Annexure P-17, perusal of which would reveal that the said le<er dated 29.06.2006 was sent by the Chief Engineer, PSIEC to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporaon, Paala, regarding the signing of the agreement in respect of transfer of 22 employees from PSIEC to Municipal Corporaon, Paala. Clauses Nos.3 and 4 of the same read as under:- “3. The date of appointment of the officials shall be considered from the date of absorpon with the M.C. There, officials shall work on the terms and condions with the Municipal Corporaon as on they were with the parent department. Page 7 of 10 Sarita Rani 2025.01.20 16:58 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.1396 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007401 CWP No.5634 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007403 4. No benefit of the pension service shall be at the tail end of the employees of the Municipal Corporaon.” 13. On the basis of above-said condions in the agreement, it is contended that as the peoner was absorbed with the Municipal Corporaon, Paala in March, 2006, therefore, he is a new entrant and that previous service rendered by him in respondent No.5-Corporaon is not to be counted and so, the benefit of pension is not admissible to him. 14. There is no merit in the above-said contenon of respondent No.3. Firstly, the said agreement (Annexure P-17) has been executed a-er the transfer of the peoner and similarly situated employees from respondent No.5 to respondent No.3, inasmuch as they were transferred as per order dated 13.01.2006 (Annexure P-6). Secondly, the peoners are not signatory to the agreement (Annexure P-17). The said agreement was not inmated/conveyed to the peoners nor their consent was taken, before transferring them to Municipal Corporaon, Paala from PSIEC. The said agreement (Annexure P-17) executed inter se respondent Nos.3 and 5 does not tantamount to any rule or bye-law to be binding upon the peoners. 15. As such, it is held that on the basis of the agreement (Annexure P-17), the peoners cannot be treated to be new entrants in the Municipal Corporaon, Paala, nor the benefit of previous service rendered by them with respondent No.5 can be denied to them. 16. It was also contended during the course of arguments that being the new entrants in 2006 in Municipal Corporaon, Paala, the peoners will be governed by the New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme issued by the Punjab Government, Department of Finance vide le<er No.3/72/2003- 3FPPC/7280 dated 12.12.2006 (Annexure P-22). 17. There is no merit in the contenon, as bare perusal of Annexure P-22 would reveal that it is applicable only to those employees, who are appointed on or a-er 01.01.2004. As it has been found that prior to their transfer to Municipal Corporaon, Paala in 2006, peoners had rendered service with respondent No.5-Corporaon, which is to be counted towards Sarita Rani 2025.01.20 16:58 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.1396 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007401 CWP No.5634 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007403 their qualifying service, therefore, peoners are not to be governed under the New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme. 18. It is further the contenon of learned counsel of respondent No.3 that there was no pension scheme applicable to the peoners in their parent department, i.e. respondent No.5 and as such, they are not entled for any pensionary benefits a-er their transfer to respondent No.3-Municipal Corporaon, Paala. 19. There is no merit in the contenon, as the Provident Fund amount of the peoners deposited by the previous employer, i.e. respondent No.5 of the peoners with Regional Provident Fund Commissioner can be transferred to the Municipal Corporaon, Paala and then, peoners will be entled all reral benefits including pension. Similar direcon was given by this Court in CWP No.16644 of 2008, tled as “Darshan Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and others”, decided on 21.02.2011, copy of which has been annexed by the peoners as Annexure P-20. 20. On account of enre discussion as above, the present writ peons are hereby accepted. It is directed that respondent No.5 shall transfer the provident fund amount of the peoners for the service as rendered by them in respondent N:5/corporaon with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Chandigarh, to the Municipal Corporaon, Paala – respondent N: 3. The peoners will facilitate in the said transfer. The peoners will be also at liberty to approach the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Chandigarh for transferring of the contributory amount deposited by respondent No.5 – Corporaon in the respecve provident fund accounts of the peoners to the Municipal Corporaon, Paala. In case, the peoners have already withdrawn the said amount, they shall deposit the same alongwith interest at the permissible rate with the Municipal Corporaon, Paala. On deposit/transfer of the said amount, respondent No.3 – Municipal Corporaon, Paala is directed to count the service rendered by the peoners in respondent No.5-Corporaon for the purpose Sarita Rani 2025.01.20 16:58 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.1396 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007401 CWP No.5634 of 2014 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 007403 of reral benefits. The needful shall be done within a period of 02 months from the date of transfer of the such amount by the peoners, in accordance with law. 21. Both the peons are allowed accordingly. Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected case file. January 20, 2025 Renu/Sarita (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes Whether reportable? Yes Sarita Rani 2025.01.20 16:58 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order