LPA-2095-2024 (O 108 (2 cases) IN THE 1. Chaudhary Cha Dr. K.C. Bishn 2. Chaudhary Cha Dr. Ghanshyam CORAM: HO HO Present: M for M M for SANJEEV PR CM-4958-LPA Ap filing of respec Main cases 1. These a Haryana passed b filed by been all 24 (O&M); LPA-2143-2024 (O&M) THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH Date of ry Charan Singh H.A.U., Hisar Vs. Bishnoi and another **** ry Charan Singh H.A.U., Hisar Vs. shyam Dass Sharma and another **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEE **** Mr. Shreenath A. Khemka, Advoc for the appellants. Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate Mr. Arjun Sawhni, Advocate for the respondents. **** PRAKASH SHARMA, J. LPA-2024 and CM-5081-LPA-2024 Applications for condonation of de respective appeals are allowed, and acc ese appeals have been preferred b ryana Agricultural University, assaili ssed by the learned Single Judge wh ed by the respondents No.1 herein of en allowed; impugned orders there NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH Reserved on: 20.01.2025 ate of Pronouncement: 27.01.2025 LPA-2095-2024 (O&M) . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondents LPA-2143-2024 (O&M) . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondents SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Advocate ocate and n of delay of 17 days and 16 days in and accordingly delay is condoned. rred by Chaudhary Charan Singh, assailing the order dated 02.07.2024 ge whereby the two writ petitions, rein of the respective appeals, have therein have been quashed; and 2025 2025 M) llant s M) llant s in ingh, 2024 ions, have and MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.29 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-2095-2024 (O direction appellant date of qualifyin Bishnoi years w petitione 2. The lear arrears o respectiv payment 3. To adj petitione 4. Dr. K.C. Assistant qualifica in Agron of Ph.D Agronom Assistant Agronom therefore joining s selected on attain age at the 24 (O&M); LPA-2143-2024 (O&M) ections have been issued by the l pellant/University to revise the writ te of superannuation by extending alifying service of 4 years and 22 d shnoi (writ petitioner/respondent No ars with respect to Dr. Ghans titioner/respondent No.1 in LPA-2143 e learned Single Judge further held t ears of revised pension from 38 m pective petitions with interest @6% yment. adjudicate these appeals, b titioners/respondents No.1 in the LPAs . K.C. Bishnoi (respondent No.1 in LP sistant Professor Agronomy. Th alifications of Second Class B.Sc (Ag Agronomy and three years teaching/ Ph.D (Agronomy). He had essen ronomy, and also requisite experie sistant from August 1968 to Septem ronomist from September 1969 to refore selected as Assistant Professo ning services, his age was 29 years lected as Associate Professor in 1978; attaining superannuation age on 30.0 e at the time of joining service was 29 the learned Single Judge to the writ petitioners’ pension from the nding the benefit of addition to 22 days with respect to Dr. K.C. nt No.1 in LPA-2095-2024) and 5 Ghanshyam Dass Sharma (writ 2143-2024). held the writ petitioners entitled to 38 months prior to filing of the @6% p.a. from due date till actual s, brief facts of the writ LPAs, need to be briefly noticed. in LPA-2095-2024) was selected as . The post required essential c (Agriculture), Second Class M.Sc ching/research/extension experience essential qualifications of M.Sc xperience of working as Research September 1969, and as Assistant 69 to September 1970, and was rofessor Agronomy. At the time of years and 22 days. He was further 1978; Professor in 1988; and retired n 30.09.2001. Since the petitioner’s as 29 years and 22 days, he claimed the the n to K.C. nd 5 (writ ed to f the ctual writ ed as ntial M.Sc ience .Sc arch stant was e of rther tired ner’s imed MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.29 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-2095-2024 (O benefit o order dat qualifyin however benefit o pension, on Claus 5. Similarly 2143-202 worked qualifica pursue h and rejo person to as Senior qualifyin of 5 year Assistant 6. Learned allowed claimed the quali Bishnoi a 7. Learned that the 3.2 and 24 (O&M); LPA-2143-2024 (O&M) nefit of 4 years and 22 days qualifyin der dated 21.09.2002 granted him we alifying service for pension, and releas ver, filed a petition and claimed nefit of 4 years and 22 days weighta nsion, as his age exceeded 25 years b Clause 3.2, Chapter VIII-A of the Pen milarly, Dr. Ghanshyam Dass Sharm 2024) joined the University as Re rked as Research Assistant from 1 alification of M.Sc, whereafter he le rsue his Ph.D course. After having do d rejoined the University as Assistan rson to possess 3 years’ experience + Senior Scientist on 29.02.2004, and w alifying service. The petitioner repres 5 years, since he was 36 years of age sistant Botanist (Assistant Professor). arned Single Judge has considered th owed the petitions directing the Un imed by the writ petitioners (respond qualifying service of 4 years and 22 shnoi and 5 years with respect to Dr. G arned counsel appearing for the Univ t the Single Judge has wrongly cons and wrongly awarded the benefit. alifying service. The University vide im weightage of only six months in released his pensionary benefits. He aimed that he should be given the eightage for qualifying service for ears by 4 years and 22 days, relying he Pension Statutes. Sharma (respondent No.1 in LPA- as Research Assistant in 1969. He rom 1969 to 1973 and possessed r he left the University in 1973 to ing done his Ph.D, he was selected ssistant Botanist, which required a nce + Ph.D/M.Sc. He superannuated and was given 2 years of benefit for represented and was granted benefit of age at the time of appointment as ssor). red the provisions of clause 3.2 and he University to add the period as spondents No.1 herein) for counting nd 22 days with respect to Dr. K.C. Dr. Ghanshyam Dass as above. e University has however submitted y construed the provisions of clause nefit. He submits that the petitioner vide hs in s. He the e for lying - He ssed 3 to ected ed a ated it for nefit nt as and d as nting K.C. itted lause ioner MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.29 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-2095-2024 (O had join complete that the instructio and 22 d to Dr. Gh 8. He subm qualifica petitione age of 2 since he joined, h 9. Learned from del waiting f only afte sought pa 10. Learned which is compens Ph.D. qu not be g Dr. K.C. get benef 11. Learned Shree D 24 (O&M); LPA-2143-2024 (O&M) d joined the University at the age o mpleted 3 years in 1972, when he wa t the Government instructions date tructions dated 22.03.2002 did not a 2 days with respect to Dr. K.C. Bis Dr. Ghanshyam Dass, as granted by th submits that the benefit was to be r alification could be acquired at t titioner/Dr. Ghanshyam Dass could a e of 27 years alone, and so far as D ce he possessed the qualification of M ned, he could at best be given the bene arned counsel has further submitted m delay and laches and estoppels. Th iting for long, and had chosen not to ly after the success of others in their w ught parity. earned counsel has further submitted ich is similar to Rule 4.2 of the Punja mpensate for the time taken to acqu .D. qualification was a preferential qu t be given for such preferential quali . K.C. Bishnoi had M.Sc + 3 years’ benefit of only six months. earned counsel has relied on judgmen ee Dhyaneshwar Maharaj, [1959] age of 24 years in 1969 and thus he was 27 years of age. He submits s dated 05.03.2001 and University not allow such addition of 4 years .C. Bishnoi and 5 years with respect d by the learned Single Judge. to be restricted to the time, the said at the earliest. Admittedly, the ould acquire the qualification at the Dr. K.C. Bishnoi is concerned, n of M.Sc in 1967 when he initially e benefit of six months. itted that the order passed suffered ls. The petitioners were fence-sitters not to agitate their rights, and it was their writ petitions in 2017, that they mitted that the intent of clause 3.2 Punjab Civil Services Rules, was to o acquire specialized qualifications. tial qualification, and the same could qualifications. Since the petitioner/ ears’ experience in 1972, he would dgment of Balakrishna Savalram v. 59] Supp (2) SCR 476 to submit thus mits rsity years spect said the t the rned, tially fered itters t was they e 3.2 as to ions. ould oner/ ould v. bmit MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.29 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-2095-2024 (O that cont an injury the act m to submi action ac ground to beyond a reject the 5027 of acting up also amo Arvind K sitters ca vigilant Ayurve 18.12.20 State of 10.02.20 compen specialis appointm 12. Per con on State Public S another, 24 (O&M); LPA-2143-2024 (O&M) t continuing cause of action does not a injury which is complete, even thou act may continue; Shiv Dass v. Unio submit that notwithstanding that in the tion actually continues from month to ound to overlook delay in filing the pe yond a reasonable period, say three ye ect the same; Mrinmoy Maity v. Chh 7 of 2024, SLP(C) No.30152 of 2 ting upon one's right would not only o amount to acquiescence in the imp ind Kumar Srivastava, [2014] 12 S ters cannot claim the benefit of judg ilant counterparts; Shivani and o rvedic College and others (CW 2.2015), to submit that no mandamu e of Haryana v. Mulk Raj Mehta 2.2011) to submit that objective mpensate an employee for the time ecialist qualification which was es pointment. contra, learned counsel appearing tate of Haryana vs. Sh. Mulkh R lic Service Commission vs. Jagdis ther, 2014 (8) SCC 644 to submit th s not arise if the wrongful act causes though the damage resulting from Union of India, 2007 (9) SCC 274 t in the case of pension, the cause of nth to month, the same cannot be a the petition, and if the same is filed ree years, normally the Court would Chhanda Koley (Civil Appeal No. of 2018) to submit that delay in t only invite delay and latches, but he impugned action; State of UP v. 12 SCR 193, to submit that fence- f judgement rendered in favour of d others v. Shri Dhanwantry CWP-17748-2015, decided on ndamus lies against the Statute; and ehta (RSA-598-2010, decided on ective behind Rule 4.2A was to time taken by him in securing the as essential, not preferential, for aring for the respondents has relied h Raj Mehta, 2012 (3) PLR 58; gdish Chandra Singh Bora and bmit that executive orders could not uses from 74 se of be a filed ould No. in , but v. - ur of try on ; and on s to the , for elied 58; nd d not MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.29 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-2095-2024 (O supplant India. 13. On the General others, 2 which ar statutory 14. He supp 15. Before apposite Pension S sh su pe len at fiv he sp tec ag ad se tha is pe 24 (O&M); LPA-2143-2024 (O&M) pplant the Rules framed under Artic n the same issue, he also relies on ju eral Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sa rs, 2009 (7) SCC 205 to contend th ich are conflicting to statutory provi tutory rules are required to be followe e supports the order passed by the lear efore we address to the contentions posite to refer to Clause 3.2, Chapt nsion Statues, which reads as under: “3.2. An employee appointe shall be eligible to add to his se superannuation pension (but not fo pension) the actual period not excee length of his service or the actual pe at the time of recruitment exceeded 2 five years, whichever is less, if the se he is appointed is one (a) for which post-grad specialist qualification or expe technological or professional field is (b) to which candidates of age are normally recruited. Provided that this co admissible to an employee unless service at the time he quits Univers than 10 years. Provided further that a is recruited at the age of 35 years period of 3 months from the date o Article 309 of the Constitution of s on judgment of Supreme Court in al Sansthan vs. Laxmi Devi and tend that administrative instructions provisions cannot prevail, and the llowed. e learned Single Judge. ntions of the parties, it would be Chapter VIII-A of the University’s inted to a service or post is service qualifying for ot for any other class of xceeding one fourth of the l periods by which his age ed 25 years or a period of he service or post to which graduate research or a experience in scientific, ld is essential and s of more than 25 years of s concession shall not be less his actual qualifying iversity service is not less at any such employee who ars or more may, within a te of his appointment may n of rt in nd tions the d be ’s MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.29 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-2095-2024 (O ele eli 16. Rule 4. applicabl qualifyin 3.2 of th Governm instructio on 21.02 Th were cha CWP No dated 05 Clause 3 qualifyin Assistant into serv No.346 o Single Ju tha ap to int co res po the 24 (O&M); LPA-2143-2024 (O&M) elect to forego his rights to pension eligible to subscribe to Contributory ule 4.2-A of the Punjab Civil Ser plicable to the State of Haryana provid alifying for superannuation pension w of the Pension Statutes. The Rule 4.2 vernment by issuing instructions d tructions were issued by the Universi 21.02.2002. The instructions issued by the G re challenged before this Court by o P No.2474 of 2012, and the High C ted 05.03.2001 holding them to be ause 3.2 of the Pensions Statutes. It alifying service could not be restricted sistant Professor, and would be avail o service by direct recruitment as w .346 of 2017, the Division Bench up ngle Judge and observed as under: “(7) Learned Single Judge h that any post on which an employe appointed first time by way of direct to be taken as “first entry level interpretation of Rule 3.2, in our c correct statement of law for the re respondents in both the cases were post of Associate Professor or equ their first entry in the service o sion whereupon he will be tory Provident Fund.” il Services Rules, Volume II, as provides special additions to service sion which are pari materia to Rule ule 4.2 was sought to be clarified by ions dated 05.03.2001. The same iversity with reference to clause 3.2 the Government dated 05.03.2001 rt by one Dr. Mam Chand Goel in High Court quashed the instructions to be contrary to the provisions of tes. It was held that the benefit of tricted to the first entry level post of e available at the time of first entry t as well as on higher post. In LPA upheld the order passed by the dge has held and rightly so loyee of the University is irect recruitment will have vel in service”. Such an ur considered view, is the e reason that the private ere direct entrants to the equivalent and that was e of the University. The I, as rvice Rule d by same e 3.2 2001 in tions s of it of st of entry LPA y the MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.29 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-2095-2024 (O ex Un dir po ap po the wi As the req Pr be pr so Go rej 17. Learned after the framed i clause 3. He there Universi both the period, t qualifyin was to b on accou individua requisite 24 (O&M); LPA-2143-2024 (O&M) expression “service” has to mean University to which a person is a direct recruitment. (8) Rule 3.2 talks of appoin post” at the age exceeding 25 years appointment to such “service” or postgraduate research or specialist the post must be of such stature wh with more than 25 years age are a Associate Professor or equivalent a the conditions. Only a postgradu requisite teaching experience is ap Professor and both such eligibiliti before the age of 25 years. The Sta pretext of interpretation of the Rule something to the Rule which is neith Government’s interpretation of the R rejected.” earned counsel appearing for the Uni er the Government instructions were med its own instructions dated 22.03 use 3.2 of the Pension Statutes was li therefore submits that there could ha iversity instructions dated 22.03.200 th the petitioners had acquired the riod, they could not have been giv alifying service based on the basis of s to be seen as to whether the age in account of acquiring of the qualificat ividual has not joined the State servic uisite qualifications, the benefit oug ean ‘any service’ of the is appointed first time by ppointment to “a service or ears and the eligibility for or “post” must require alist qualification etc. and where normally persons re appointed. The post of ent admittedly satisfy both raduate/ Doctorate with is appointed as Associate bilities cannot be earned State Government on the Rule has attempted to add neither here nor there. The he Rule therefore has to be e University has taken a stand that were issued on 05.03.2001, it also 22.03.2002 whereby the benefit of was limited to maximum of 2 years. uld have been no departure from the 03.2002. It is submitted that since d the qualifications within the age en given the benefit of additional sis of age of entry in service, and it age in entry of the service increased alification or for other reasons. If an services, although possessing all the fit ought not be given to him. He that also fit of ears. the since age ional nd it ased If an ll the He MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.29 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-2095-2024 (O therefore be set asi 18. We have more res 19. The lear passed b and seco (supra). 20. Learned Mulkh R spent in relaxatio qualifyin 21. Howeve and the s was rem that Rule of the Pe to add to 1/4th of t the time whicheve of Mulk decision 24 (O&M); LPA-2143-2024 (O&M) refore submits that the order passed b set aside. have considered the submissions as res integra. he learned counsel for the respondents ssed by this Court. First being case o d second the judgment passed in th ra). earned counsel for the University s kh Raj Mehta (supra) essentially ent in acquiring qualification should axation should be given, and should alifying service. owever, after going through the order d the subsequent order passed by the S s remanded by the Division Bench, w t Rule 4.2A of the Civil Services Rule the Pension Statutes and means that a add to his superannuation pension, th of the length of service or the actu time of recruitment exceeds 25 ichever is less. It is to be noticed tha ulkh Raj Mehta (supra) had refer cision by larger Bench: ssed by the Single Judge deserves to ns as noticed above. The issue is no ndents has relied on two judgments case of Mam Chand Goel (supra), in the case of Mulkh Raj Mehta rsity submits that the judgment of tially records that the time period hould be the period for which the hould be counted for the purpose of order passed by the Division Bench y the Single Judge to which the case nch, we have no doubt in our mind s Rules is pari materia to Clause 3.2 that an employee would be eligible ion, the actual period not exceeding e actual period by which his age at years, or a period of 5 years ed that the Single Bench in the case d referred two questions of law for es to is no ts , hta t of eriod the se of ench case mind e 3.2 gible ding ge at years case for MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.29 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-2095-2024 (O L.L Ci en is su pr ac 22. The Div said qu 23. Thus, th by 4 year 5 years w the age o 25 years with the 24. The Sin said judg and 22 d Sharma r 25. The oth petitione to deny t of rightfu The pro concerne 24 (O&M); LPA-2143-2024 (O&M) “1. Whether as per Rule 4.2 L.L.B., qualify for benefit as contai Civil Services Rules, Volume II? 2. Whether the underlying enactment is to make one eligible for is falling short of minimum superannuation pension being late provide extra weightage for calcul account of his special qualification” Division Bench vide order dated 1 id questions against the defendants. hus, the writ petitioners, who were adm 4 years and 22 days with respect to D ears with respect to Dr. Ghanshyam D age of 36 years, would be entitled t years to the maximum of 5 years to th the University. he Single Judge has therefore commit id judgments and granting the benefit o d 22 days to Dr. K.C. Bishnoi, and 5 arma respectively. he other contentions raised by the U titioners not having taken up the matte deny them their qualifying service in t rightful pension and claim thereto is e provisions of the Statutes are w ncerned authorities, who choose no 4.2-A, the qualification of ntained in Rules 4.2-A of lying idea of the said e for earning pension, if he m service, for getting late entrant only or to alculating the pension on ” ated 10.02.2011 answered both the ere admittedly above 25 years of age ct to Dr. K.C. Bishnoi and more than yam Dass Sharma who had joined at titled to add additional period above ears to their actual service rendered ommitted no folly in relying on the nefit of qualifying service of 4 years and 5 years to Dr. Ghanshyam Dass the University with regard to the matter earlier would be of no reason ce in terms of the Statute. The denial reto is a continuous cause of action. are within the knowledge of the ose not to extend the benefit of h the f age than ed at bove ered n the years Dass the ason enial tion. the it of MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.29 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-2095-2024 (O interpreta Court res 26. Even th the Univ the Cou Universi provision said judg further a of respon as well a stands al way in litigation 27. Without Universi Judge at 28. LPAs sta 29. All pend 27.01.2025 Mohit goyal 1. Whether 2. Whether 24 (O&M); LPA-2143-2024 (O&M) erpretation of law to all its employees urt resulting in unnecessary litigation. ven though, we find that in the case o University lost upto the LPA. Again Court in the present LPAs. We iversity and hold that once a view rel ovisions of law has already been taken id judgment has also been tested at th rther appeals should be allowed to be responsible officers should be prepare well as their departments to examine w nds already covered by judgment of th y in reducing the pendency of the igation in the Court. ithout further much ado, we dismis iversity with directions to implement dge at the earliest and without any furt PAs stand dismissed accordingly. ll pending applications also stand dispo (SANJE (ME ether speaking/reasoned? Ye ether reportable? Ye loyees, forcing them to approach the ation. case of Mam Chand Goel (supra), Again the University has approached . We deprecate the action of the ew relating to a particular Statute or taken by a Division Bench, and the d at the level of Supreme Court, no to be filed by the authorities. A cell repared at the level of the University mine whether appeal being preferred nt of the Court. This would go a long of the cases and the unnecessary dismiss the LPAs preferred by the ement the order passed by the Single y further delay. d disposed of. ANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No h the , ched the te or d the t, no cell rsity erred long ssary the ingle MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.29 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document