9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 1207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -5-2014 - B.S. Chauhan and A.K. Sikri, JJ. For the Appellant : Dinesh Kumar Garg and Dhananjay Garg, Advs. For the Respondents : Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Adv. JUDGMENT B.S. Chauhan, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 1.12.2009 in Regular Second Appeal No. 2299 of 2009, passed by the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh, affirming the judgment and decree dated 16.9.2008, passed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar in Civil Appeal No. 122 of 14.6.2006 as well as the judgment and decree dated 23.5.2006, passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Amritsar in Civil Suit No. 275 of 2004, wherein and whereunder the courts have dismissed the suit of the Appellant for grant of retiral benefits for not being Government servant. 2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as under: A. That the Appellant had worked in the Army as Truck driver from 26.10.1962 to 10.1.1968. He was subsequently employed as a truck driver in the Fish Farmers Development Agency from 16.7.1980 to 20.5.1998. After being declared surplus, he was absorbed in the Animal Husbandry, Fisheries and Dairy Development, Pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t but rather was a society registered under the Act 1860. 7. The Trial Court considered the issue of entitlement of the Appellant for the aforesaid relief and held as under: Division Bench of Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the State of Punjab and Anr. v. Shri D.N. Rampal, Deputy Advocate General 1985 (1) SLR 14, where Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court held that Rule 3.12 provides three qualifications for pension. It says that the service of a Government employee does not qualify for pension unless it conforms to three conditions 1(i) the service must be under Government, (ii) the employment must be substantive and permanent and (iii) the service must be paid by Government. Counsel for the Plaintiff argued that in the present case all three conditions are fulfilled so the Plaintiff is entitled to regularization of his services as per the provisions of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II, Rule 3.16, where the Govt. pleader for the Defendant/State argued that the Plaintiff cannot claim benefit of service rendered by him prior to 1.6.1998 as services rendered by him in Fish Farmer Development Agency from 20.5.1980 to 31.5.1998 was rendered by him in a soci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the agency is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, it is an autonomous body. Their Lordship further observed that the service of the Plaintiff with the Fish Farmers Development Agency is not a department of Fisheries, Punjab and now the Petitioner/Appellant is appointed as driver with the Fisheries Department by the Director only on 28.5.1998. In view of the above, the appeal was dismissed. 9. The High Court while dealing with the issue held as under: Both the Courts below have given concurrent finding that since Fish Farmers Development Agency is an autonomous Board and is controlled by Co-operative Society and as such the services rendered by the Plaintiff with the said Society cannot be counted for the purposes of pensionary benefits. That concurrent finding of fact could not be assailed. The Petitioner has filed CWP No. 1501 of 2001 under Article 226/227 with a prayer to direct the department to release the additional increment in the form of proficiency step up after 8, 16, 24 and 32 years of the service but the same writ petition was dismissed according to the Plaintiff. 10. In fact, there has been adjudication on the same issue betwe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said judgment that the Defendant appeared and filed the written statement and admitted the claim of the Plaintiff therein. Therefore, the judgment is not worth putting any reliance on it. The finding of fact had been recorded therein that: Karam Singh, DW. 1 admitted during cross-examination that Punjab Govt. gives funds to Defendant No. 1 agency, admitted that Defendant No. 1 agency is being run by Punjab Government admitted that employees in the agency are sent by Punjab Government and admitted that employees of Punjab Government are appointed for service in the agency and he admitted that he himself is also Government employee. (Emphasis added) So here is a suit which was decreed on the admission of the Defendant against whom no relief was prayed for, and without impleading the necessary party. We are equally amazed to find that State of Punjab implemented the judgment. It leaves much to be desired. 14. Thus, in view of the fact that the judgment and decree in the case of Charanjit Lal seems to be collusive and in a suit which itself was not maintainable, we are unable to accept the submission advanced by Shri Garg, learned Counsel for the Appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
