Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC

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