Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

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

 

Similar News