HC questions extension in service for employees

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, March 22

Flooded with petitions filed by employees seeking extension beyond the age of superannuation following amendment to the Service Rules, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has not only questioned the rationale behind the move but also given the state a week’s time to address the Bench on the issue after seeking instructions from the state Chief Secretary.

The Bench has also asked the state to specify whether the youth in the state were being deprived of the opportunity of government service due to the amendment carried out in the Punjab Civil Service Rules, 2012.

The court queries came after Justice Rajan Gupta of the High Court expanded the scope of a petition filed against the state and other respondents by an employee, Sharanjit Kaur. Schedule to retire on April 30 upon attaining the age of superannuation, she was seeking extension in service on the basis of instructions dated October 8, 2018.

On an average, an employee or civil servant gets Rs 30 lakh as gratuity and other benefits upon retirement. Estimates suggest approximately Rs 4,500 crore may be required to fund the retirement benefits to employees superannuating if two-year extension in service policy was scrapped.

As the case came up for hearing, her counsel told Justice Gupta’s Bench that decision had not been taken on her plea for extension. “It needs to be noticed that this court has been flooded with cases where the employees have been seeking extension beyond the age of superannuation in view of the amendment carried out in the Punjab Civil Service Rules, 2012, and the instructions issued there under,” Justice Gupta asserted.

The Bench then asked the state counsel to specify the objective sought to be achieved by such amendment and whether it would result in denial of employment opportunities to the younger generation particularly in government sector. The counsel was also asked to specify the factors that weighed with the government while taking such “a sweeping decision”.

In response to the queries, the state counsel submitted that she required a week’s time to seek instructions from the state Chief Secretary and apprise the court. The case will now come up for further hearing in first week of April. The HC has already made it clear that granting extension in service to an employee after the age of superannuation was the employer’s prerogative. An employee could be granted extension in service for a year, but denied the same for second year.