CM-5549-CWP CWP-9567-20 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 104+209 DR. SATYA NARAIN SHARMA STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. V. P. Singla, Advocate for the Mr. Amit Sahni, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA CM-5549-CWP For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Order dated 14.07.2010 exceptions. Main Case The petition has been filed the respondents which the petitioner worked as service and release salary and pensionary benefits directions issued by Annexure P-3 petitioner’s adhoc gratuity, and give the benefit CWP-2025 in/and 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM CWP Decided On: DR. SATYA NARAIN SHARMA Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. V. P. Singla, Advocate or the applicant/petitioner. Mr. Amit Sahni, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J.(Oral) CWP-2025 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Order dated 14.07.2010 is taken on record as Annexure P The petition has been filed seeking a writ of respondents to consider the period from which the petitioner worked after retirement as Principal and release salary and pensionary benefits issued by the Supreme Court 3. Further, a direction has been sought adhoc service from 30.11.1987 to , and give the benefit of leave encashment IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-5549-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-9567-2014 Decided On: 02.09.2025 ....PETITIONER(s) ....RESPONDENT(s) . JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. Amit Sahni, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. as Annexure P-7, subject to all just seeking a writ of mandamus directing from 31.08.2010 to 28.02.2011, for after retirement as Principal of an aided College, and release salary and pensionary benefits for the same as per the Supreme Court vide order dated 17.07.2013, a direction has been sought to count the period of 30.11.1987 to 28.02.1989 for pension and of leave encashment for 423 days with interest. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. , subject to all just directing for , as per , to count the period of for pension and Aman Dua 2025.09.09 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CM-5549-CWP CWP-9567-20 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner as Principal of the College, the petitioner 31.08.2010 on attaining the age of superannuation. The date of retirement was challenged by him along with other teachers vide interim order dated In view of the above circumstances have not retired as on date, shall not be retired till further orders. However, they shall not be entitled to salary/emoluments for the period beyond their retirement. The writ petition was 04.03.2011, and the petitioner was relieved 28.02.2011. The order passed by this Court was challenged by Supreme Court decided along with other Civil Appeals the following observations: 67. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court in all these matters in the behalf of the respective parties. The several Appeals, Writ Petitions and the Transferred Case, which involve the same questions as considered in this batch of cases, are all dismissed. However, the Appeals filed by Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6724, 13747 and 14676 of 2012 are allowed. As far as the Transfer Petition Nos. 1062 OF 2012 are concerned, the same are allowed and the Transferred Cases are dismissed. The Conte disposed of by virtue of this judgment. However, persons who have continued to work on the basis of the interim orders passed by this Court or any other Court, shall not be denied the benefit of service during the said period. The Appeals CWP-2025 in/and 2014 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner as Principal of the College, the petitioner was on attaining the age of superannuation. The date of retirement was by him along with other teachers by filing vide interim order dated 14.07.2010, the following directions were issued: In view of the above circumstances have not retired as on date, shall not be retired till further orders. However, they shall not be entitled to salary/emoluments for the period beyond their retirement. The writ petition was finally dismissed by this Court vid , and the petitioner was relieved The order passed by this Court was challenged by Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeals no. 5630 decided along with other Civil Appeals vide judgment dated 17.07.2013 the following observations: 67. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court in all these matters in the light of the various submissions made on behalf of the respective parties. The several Appeals, Writ Petitions and the Transferred Case, which involve the same questions as considered in this batch of cases, are all dismissed. However, the Appeals filed by the State of Uttarakhand and Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6724, 13747 and 14676 of 2012 are allowed. As far as the Transfer Petition Nos. 1062 OF 2012 are concerned, the same are allowed and the Transferred Cases are dismissed. The Conte disposed of by virtue of this judgment. However, persons who have continued to work on the basis of the interim orders passed by this Court or any other Court, shall not be denied the benefit of service during the said period. The Appeals Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that while working was due to retire from service on on attaining the age of superannuation. The date of retirement was by filing, CWP-8823-2010, and , the following directions were issued: In view of the above circumstances, such of the petitioners who have not retired as on date, shall not be retired till further orders. However, they shall not be entitled to salary/emoluments for the finally dismissed by this Court vide order dated , and the petitioner was relieved from service with effect from The order passed by this Court was challenged by him in the 5630-5653 of 2013, which were vide judgment dated 17.07.2013, with 67. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court in light of the various submissions made on behalf of the respective parties. The several Appeals, Writ Petitions and the Transferred Case, which involve the same questions as considered in this batch of cases, are all dismissed. the State of Uttarakhand and Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6724, 13747 and 14676 of 2012 are allowed. As far as the Transfer Petition Nos. 1062-1068 OF 2012 are concerned, the same are allowed and the Transferred Cases are dismissed. The Contempt Petitions are disposed of by virtue of this judgment. However, persons who have continued to work on the basis of the interim orders passed by this Court or any other Court, shall not be denied the benefit of service during the said period. The Appeals and Petitions that while working on on attaining the age of superannuation. The date of retirement was , and , such of the petitioners who have not retired as on date, shall not be retired till further orders. However, they shall not be entitled to salary/emoluments for the e order dated from service with effect from in the were , with 67. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court in light of the various submissions made on behalf of the respective parties. The several Appeals, Writ Petitions and the Transferred Case, which involve the same questions as considered in this batch of cases, are all dismissed. the State of Uttarakhand and Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6724, 13747 and 14676 of 1068 OF 2012 are concerned, the same are allowed and the mpt Petitions are disposed of by virtue of this judgment. However, persons who have continued to work on the basis of the interim orders passed by this Court or any other Court, shall not be denied the benefit and Petitions Aman Dua 2025.09.09 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CM-5549-CWP CWP-9567-20 having been dismissed, both the State Authorities and the Central Authorities will be at liberty to work out their remedies in accordance with law. 2.1. Learned counsel has Supreme Court that the persons interim order passed by this Court during that period. College in terms of interim order dated 01.09.2010 to 28.02.2011 salary, dearness allowances also claimed that the 28.02.1989 along with aforementioned calculated for pensionary benefits. information received under Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, dated 07.04.2023, Annexure P the effect that some similarly placed teachers of the University, whose Civil Appeals were dismissed by the Supreme Court along with that of the petitioner vide order dated along with arrears and benefits of leave encashment, etc. 3. Per contra not entitled to any service benefits 14.07.2010 passed by this Court, Education, issued directions which are as under: Govt. Aided Private Colleges have filed Civil Writ Petitions for extension of superannuation age 60 to 65 years in the Hon'ble CWP-2025 in/and 2014 -3- having been dismissed, both the State Authorities and the Central Authorities will be at liberty to work out their remedies in accordance with law. Learned counsel has placed reliance Supreme Court that the persons who had continued to work on the basis of interim order passed by this Court, shall not be denied the benefits of service during that period. It is claimed that the petitioner worked as Principal i in terms of interim order dated 14.07.2010 to 28.02.2011, and became entitle salary, dearness allowances, leave encashment and pensionary benefits also claimed that the adhoc service rendered along with aforementioned period of service should also be for pensionary benefits. Further, a information received under the Right to Information Act, 2005 Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, dated 07.04.2023, Annexure P the effect that some similarly placed teachers of the University, whose Civil Appeals were dismissed by the Supreme Court along with that of the petitioner vide order dated 17.07.2013, had been released the amount of salary along with arrears and benefits of leave encashment, etc. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that to any service benefits because after the interim order dated passed by this Court, the third respondent/Directo , issued directions, vide memo dated which are as under: This is to inform you that some employees working in Govt. Aided Private Colleges have filed Civil Writ Petitions for extension of superannuation age 60 to 65 years in the Hon'ble having been dismissed, both the State Authorities and the Central Authorities will be at liberty to work out their remedies in reliance upon the directions by the who had continued to work on the basis of , shall not be denied the benefits of service It is claimed that the petitioner worked as Principal in the 4.07.2010 passed by this Court, from entitled to all service benefits of , leave encashment and pensionary benefits. It is rendered by him from 30.11.1987 to period of service should also be Further, a reference has been made to Right to Information Act, 2005, from the Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, dated 07.04.2023, Annexure P-6, to the effect that some similarly placed teachers of the University, whose Civil Appeals were dismissed by the Supreme Court along with that of the had been released the amount of salary along with arrears and benefits of leave encashment, etc. , learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is because after the interim order dated the third respondent/Director, Higher , vide memo dated 27.12.2010, Annexure R-1/T, This is to inform you that some employees working in Govt. Aided Private Colleges have filed Civil Writ Petitions for extension of superannuation age 60 to 65 years in the Hon'ble having been dismissed, both the State Authorities and the Central Authorities will be at liberty to work out their remedies in upon the directions by the who had continued to work on the basis of , shall not be denied the benefits of service n the from all service benefits of . It is 30.11.1987 to period of service should also be reference has been made to the 6, to the effect that some similarly placed teachers of the University, whose Civil Appeals were dismissed by the Supreme Court along with that of the had been released the amount of salary the petitioner is because after the interim order dated r, Higher , This is to inform you that some employees working in Govt. Aided Private Colleges have filed Civil Writ Petitions for extension of superannuation age 60 to 65 years in the Hon'ble Aman Dua 2025.09.09 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CM-5549-CWP CWP-9567-20 High Court wherein the Hon'ble High Court has passed the interim order on 14 retired on their superannuation age but they will not be paid the salary after the date of superannuation. The same nature matters are still pending in the Hon'ble High Court. If any such employee is working in y follows: He further submits that even if the petitioner was allowed to College after attaining the age of aforesaid directions that he Therefore, on the claim the service benefits. Regarding the payment of leave encashment, he contends that the petitioner benefit of leave encashment adhoc service as well as the service rendered after the retirement towards the pensionary benefits Haryana Affiliated CWP-2025 in/and 2014 -4- High Court wherein the Hon'ble High Court has passed the interim order on 14.07.2010 that the petitioners are not to be retired on their superannuation age but they will not be paid the salary after the date of superannuation. The same nature matters are still pending in the Hon'ble High Court. If any such employee is working in your college, please ensure to take action as follows:- 1. The Status of the petitioners would remain as retired Principal/Lecturer in your college. 2. The petitioner who have D.D. Powers on the date of their superannuation the DD Power will not be given to them after superannuation. 3. Any other responsibility, work/work load/will not be given to that petitioner. 4. The Pension/Gratuity Bill of the petitioners will be prepared and sent to the Directorate for approval. If any petitioner denies to take the re an affidavit from him that in future the possibilities of demand of interest on the reti claimed. submits that even if the petitioner was allowed to College after attaining the age of superannuation, aforesaid directions that he was not to be given Therefore, on the principle of ‘no work no pay claim the service benefits. Regarding the payment of leave encashment, he contends that the petitioner has been an employee of an benefit of leave encashment is not admissible to him service as well as the service rendered after the retirement towards the pensionary benefits, he further Affiliated Colleges (Pension and Contributory Provident Fund), High Court wherein the Hon'ble High Court has passed the .07.2010 that the petitioners are not to be retired on their superannuation age but they will not be paid the salary after the date of superannuation. The same nature matters are still pending in the Hon'ble High Court. If any such employee our college, please ensure to take action as 1. The Status of the petitioners would remain as retired Principal/Lecturer in your college. 2. The petitioner who have D.D. Powers on the date of their superannuation the DD Power will not be given to 3. Any other responsibility, work/work load/will not be 4. The Pension/Gratuity Bill of the petitioners will be prepared and sent to the Directorate for approval. If any petitioner denies to take the retirement benefits then take an affidavit from him that in future the possibilities of demand of interest on the retiral benefits cannot be submits that even if the petitioner was allowed to work by the superannuation, it was in violation of the was not to be given any work or responsibility. no work no pay’, he cannot be held entitled to claim the service benefits. Regarding the payment of leave encashment, he an employee of an aided College, and the is not admissible to him. Regarding counting of service as well as the service rendered after the retirement as qualifying , he further submits that in terms of the (Pension and Contributory Provident Fund), High Court wherein the Hon'ble High Court has passed the .07.2010 that the petitioners are not to be retired on their superannuation age but they will not be paid the salary after the date of superannuation. The same nature matters are still pending in the Hon'ble High Court. If any such employee our college, please ensure to take action as 1. The Status of the petitioners would remain as retired 2. The petitioner who have D.D. Powers on the date of their superannuation the DD Power will not be given to 3. Any other responsibility, work/work load/will not be 4. The Pension/Gratuity Bill of the petitioners will be prepared and sent to the Directorate for approval. If any tirement benefits then take an affidavit from him that in future the possibilities of ral benefits cannot be by the it was in violation of the . , he cannot be held entitled to claim the service benefits. Regarding the payment of leave encashment, he , and the g of as qualifying the (Pension and Contributory Provident Fund), Aman Dua 2025.09.09 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CM-5549-CWP CWP-9567-20 Rules, 1999, the service cannot be counted as qualifying service. Section of the Rules de under these Rules employee starts contribution towards Contributory Provident Fund. 4. The submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. 5. As service on attaining the age of superannuation However, in terms of interim it was directed entitled to salary/emoluments The petition was finally dismissed by this Court vide order dated which was challenged by the petitioner before the Supreme Court, and vide judgment dated 17.07.2013 person who ha Court, shall not be denied petitioner will be entitled to salary/emoluments for the period he has worke beyond the date of retirement. This has Court vide interim order dat working and never challenged the same. Having ac without salary in terms of the interim order, he gave up the claim for salary and cannot be allowed issued by the Directorate vide remained that of of Drawing and CWP-2025 in/and 2014 -5- , the service cannot be counted as qualifying service. Section of the Rules defines ‘qualifying service’ as service that qualifies for pension under these Rules. It will be taken into account employee starts contribution towards Contributory Provident Fund. The submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. As apparent on record, the petitioner was service on attaining the age of superannuation in terms of interim order passed by this Court directed that he would not be retired on that day, entitled to salary/emoluments for working beyond The petition was finally dismissed by this Court vide order dated which was challenged by the petitioner before the Supreme Court, and vide ted 17.07.2013, while dismissing the appeals it was directed had continued to work on the basis of interim order , shall not be denied the benefits of service petitioner will be entitled to salary/emoluments for the period he has worke beyond the date of retirement. This has specifically Court vide interim order dated 14.07.2010, pursuant whereto and never challenged the same. Having ac without salary in terms of the interim order, he gave up the claim for salary and cannot be allowed to ask for it at this stage issued by the Directorate vide memo dated 27.12.2010 remained that of a retired Principal, and was not rawing and Disbursing Officer after the date of superannuation. , the service cannot be counted as qualifying service. Section 2(j) as service that qualifies for pension . It will be taken into account with effect from the date an employee starts contribution towards Contributory Provident Fund. The submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have the petitioner was due to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.08.2010. by this Court in CWP-8823-2010, that he would not be retired on that day, but shall not be working beyond the period of his retirement. The petition was finally dismissed by this Court vide order dated 04.03.2011, which was challenged by the petitioner before the Supreme Court, and vide dismissing the appeals it was directed that a continued to work on the basis of interim order passed by this benefits of service. There is no direction that the petitioner will be entitled to salary/emoluments for the period he has worked specifically been declined by this , pursuant whereto he continued and never challenged the same. Having acquiesced to working without salary in terms of the interim order, he gave up the claim for salary to ask for it at this stage. Further, as per directions 27.12.2010, the petitioner’s status Principal, and was not authorised to exercise powers fficer after the date of superannuation. Also, he 2(j) as service that qualifies for pension an The submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have due to retire from . , shall not be retirement. , which was challenged by the petitioner before the Supreme Court, and vide a passed by this direction that the d by this continued to working without salary in terms of the interim order, he gave up the claim for salary Further, as per directions , the petitioner’s status powers he Aman Dua 2025.09.09 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CM-5549-CWP CWP-9567-20 was not to be assigned have been given any work legally. be held entitled to after the date of retirement statedly given to some of its teachers by the M.D. University is also inconsequential because the petitioner is not a University employee; nor is the University a party to the petition, and the fact cannot be established on record on the basis of inf entitlement stands already discussed 6. The service as qualifying cause of action to claim the relief arose to service in February, 1989 decades and cannot be allowed to agitate Lastly, the service rendered after the date of superannuation cannot be considered as qualifying service under the 19 salary/emoluments 7. In view thereof, there is no ground to entertain the present petition and it stands dismissed. 02.09.2025 Ad Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? CWP-2025 in/and 2014 -6- was not to be assigned any work after that date. given any work legally. On this account also entitled to any salary/emoluments for any work after the date of retirement, or any other service benefit given to some of its teachers by the M.D. University is also inconsequential because the petitioner is not a University employee; nor is the University a party to the petition, and the fact cannot be established on record on the basis of information under the RTI Act stands determined on the basis of applicable facts and law, as already discussed. The prayer for counting adhoc service as qualifying service can also not be entertained at this stage cause of action to claim the relief arose to the petitioner in February, 1989. However, he remained in slumber for decades and cannot be allowed to agitate his rights by way of in service rendered after the date of superannuation cannot be considered as qualifying service under the 19 /emoluments were admissible for this period. In view thereof, there is no ground to entertain the present petition and it stands dismissed. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? any work after that date. Accordingly, he could not On this account also, the petitioner cannot salary/emoluments for any work he might have done , or any other service benefit. The salary etc. given to some of its teachers by the M.D. University is also inconsequential because the petitioner is not a University employee; nor is the University a party to the petition, and the fact cannot be established on record under the RTI Act. The petitioner’s non- on the basis of applicable facts and law, as service rendered prior to joining be entertained at this stage, as the the petitioner on the date of joining remained in slumber for over two rights by way of instant petition. service rendered after the date of superannuation cannot be considered as qualifying service under the 1999 Rules, since no were admissible for this period. In view thereof, there is no ground to entertain the present TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No Accordingly, he could not cannot done etc. given to some of its teachers by the M.D. University is also inconsequential because the petitioner is not a University employee; nor is the University a party to the petition, and the fact cannot be established on record - on the basis of applicable facts and law, as joining as the g two stant petition. service rendered after the date of superannuation cannot be , since no In view thereof, there is no ground to entertain the present Aman Dua 2025.09.09 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document