Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

High Court Dismisses Petition for Counting Contractual Service Towards Pension, Upholds New Pension Scheme for Post-2004 Regularizations

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a petition filed by Vinod Kumar and others against the Bhakra Beas Management Board and another, seeking inclusion of their seasonal/contract service period for qualifying pension service. The petitioners, appointed on an 89-days basis initially, sought directions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

The Court, led by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal, held that the service rendered on an ad-hoc basis by the petitioners before their regularization in 2004 does not qualify for pensionary benefits under the old pension scheme. Justice Bansal observed, "the petitioners did not work on ‘daily charged’ or ‘work charged’ basis during substantial part of the year whereas they worked for few days prior to their regular appointment." This observation was crucial in determining the applicability of the pension scheme.

In the detailed judgement, the Court noted the sporadic nature of the petitioners' service prior to 2004 and emphasized that regular appointments post-2004 are governed by the new pension scheme as per BBMB Regulations and Punjab CSR. The judgement further clarifies, "As the petitioners, every year prior to 2004, were working for quite few days, their service before their regular appointment cannot be counted for the purpose of pension."

The Court also distinguished the petitioners' case from previous judgments like Harbans Lal, Karan Singh, and Hari Chand cases, citing the non-continuous nature of their service before regularization. The final decision to dismiss the petition was based on the finding that the petitioners' service prior to regularization does not qualify for pensionary benefits under the old scheme.

In a concluding note, the Court granted liberty to the petitioners to raise individual cases of regularization to the respondent-Board for consideration. However, without sufficient evidence on record about identical situations, the Court's ruling stands firm on the application of the new pension scheme for employees regularized post-2004.

Date of Decision: 15th January 2024

Vinod Kumar and others VS Bhakra Beas Management Board and another

 

Latest Legal News