Sham Lal Singla vs State of Punjab and Others

Sabina, J.—Petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondents to take in consideration his service rendered in the privately managed recognized aided school towards his pensionary benefits.

Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he joined the Education Department as a peon on 7.7.1964. Later the petitioner, on gaining the necessary qualification, was appointed as JBT Teacher on 16.5.1975. Petitioner got a proposal from respondent No. 3/school for appointment as Headmaster. Petitioner sought voluntary retirement from Education Department and the same was accepted with effect from 9.6.1996. Thereafter, petitioner joined with respondent No. 3/school with effect from 10.6.1996. Services of the petitioner were terminated by the school with effect from 27.3.2006. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the School Tribunal and the same was set aside by the Tribunal vide order dated 19.12.2007. Petitioner, thus, stood superannuated with effect from 31.3.2006. Petitioner approached respondents No. 1 and 2 for counting his service rendered with respondent No. 3 for refixing his pension and pensionary benefits but no action had been taken on the same so far. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after seeking voluntary retirement from the Education Department, petitioner had joined the school/respondent No. 3 which was a government aided school. Therefore, the service rendered by the petitioner with respondent No. 3, was liable to be counted by respondents No. 1 and 2 while fixing pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Surinder Kaur Uppal versus State of Punjab and others 2009 (3) SLR 605'', Gurmeet Singh Vs. State of Punjab , State of Haryana and others versus Savitri Devi and others'', 2012 (5) SLR 468 and order passed by this Court in CWP No. 14238 of 1991 decided on 10.3.2010 (Annexure P-10).

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that petitioner had sought voluntary retirement from the Education Department and was released his pensionary benefits. Thereafter, service rendered by the petitioner with respondent No. 3, was not liable to be counted towards pension as the petitioner had already got pension from the State before he joined the school/respondent No. 3 as a Headmaster.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 3, on the other hand, has submitted that petitioner had claimed relief from respondents No. 1 and 2 and the school had been unnecessarily dragged in the litigation.

In the present case, facts are not in dispute. Admittedly, petitioner had sought voluntary retirement from Education Department and the same was accepted by the department with effect from 10.6.1996. Thereafter, petitioner joined as a Headmaster with respondent No. 3/school which was an aided school.

I have gone through the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the said cases, petitioners had worked with privately managed/aided schools/colleges before joining the government service and, therefore, it was held that the service rendered by the said employees was liable to be counted towards pension. In the present case, petitioner had sought voluntary retirement from the Education Department. Petitioner had accepted the pensionary benefits granted to him by the Education Department. After the petitioner had sought voluntary retirement from the Education Department, the petitioner cannot claim benefit of the service rendered by him with the private/aided school thereafter. Petitioner cannot get any benefit of service rendered by him with the school so far as pensionary benefits granted to him by the State, are concerned. Hence, the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner fail to advance the case of the petitioner.

No ground for interference is made out.

Dismissed.