Higher Qualifications Can't Override Prescribed Standards, But Service Deserves Pension: Punjab & Haryana High Court

In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the Chandigarh Administration’s decision to deny pension to a retired teacher, Harjeet Kaur, who served for 32 years. Despite not holding the exact qualifications prescribed for her post, the court recognized her higher qualifications and long, unblemished service as sufficient grounds to grant her pension benefits. The judgment, delivered by Justice Jagmohan Bansal, emphasizes fairness and justice over strict adherence to procedural technicalities.

Harjeet Kaur joined Vedic Girls Senior Secondary School, Mani Majra, U.T., Chandigarh, as a part-time teacher on February 1, 1981. Although she did not hold a Junior Basic Training (JBT) qualification, she possessed a Prabhakar, O.T. qualification, which is higher than JBT, awarded by Panjab University in 1990. In 1994, she applied for a regular JBT teacher position advertised by the school, was selected, and continued to work without interruption until her retirement in 2013.

The school’s management had sought approval for her appointment from the Chandigarh Administration, which was denied on the grounds that she lacked the prescribed JBT qualification. Despite the District Education Officer's recommendation that her higher qualifications should suffice, the Administration reaffirmed its rejection in 1996. Consequently, her pension was withheld upon retirement.

Right to Pension After Lengthy Service: Justice Bansal emphasized that despite the technicality of not holding a JBT qualification, Harjeet Kaur’s 32 years of continuous service as a teacher warranted a fair assessment of her entitlement to pension. The court noted that she was selected through an open process and had served without any disciplinary issues, thus justifying her claim.

The court acknowledged that while the prescribed qualifications must generally be adhered to, in this particular case, Harjeet Kaur's higher qualifications and her long tenure should not preclude her from receiving pension benefits. The ruling stressed that "it would not be just, fair and reasonable to deny her pension at this stage" given her dedicated service.

Justice Bansal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (3), which deals with regularization of temporary or ad-hoc employees. While the Constitution Bench in Umadevi cautioned against the regularization of employees who entered service through irregular means, it also allowed for exceptions in cases of long, uninterrupted service. The court applied this reasoning to grant pension rights to Harjeet Kaur, despite the procedural lapses in her initial appointment.

Justice Bansal remarked, "It is for the employer to determine qualification. If by Rules or statutory provisions, a qualification is prescribed, the Court cannot substitute said qualification, however, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the matter needs to be examined from another angle i.e. right of the petitioner to get pension."

This ruling underscores the importance of balancing procedural requirements with the principles of fairness and justice, particularly in cases involving long-term service. By setting aside the Chandigarh Administration’s decision and directing them to grant Harjeet Kaur her rightful pension, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has reinforced the need to evaluate each case on its unique merits rather than on rigid technicalities. This judgment is likely to have a significant impact on similar cases where employees with long service records face procedural barriers in claiming their rightful dues.

Date of Decision: 30 August 2024