Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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