High Court seeks explanation from Punjab on unsettled pension claims despite precedent

Tribune News Service

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, March 6

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the State of Punjab to explain why claims raised by the employees under the old pension scheme are not granted, compelling them to repeatedly approach the court by filing petitions for redressal of their grievances despite the issue having been settled by in Harbans Lal’s case.

The direction by Justice Namit Kumar, calling for an affidavit on the issue, is significant as Harbans Lal’s case decided on August 31, 2010, says employee already working on temporary or ad-hoc basis as on January 1, 2004, would be governed by old pension scheme only. 

Justice Kumar was hearing a petition filed against the State and other respondents by Kuldeep Singh for quashing three orders vide which his pension claim was declined “in violation of the settled principle of law”.

The petitioner was also seeking directions to the respondents to consider his case for grant of pension in view of the settled law in Harbans Lal’s case as he was working with the respondents since November 2001, but his services were regularized subsequently vide order dated November 18, 2011.

Directions were also sought to grant pension by counting his total service from 2001 to 2022 before releasing the consequential benefits, along with 18 per cent per annum interest on the delayed payment.

Appearing before Justice Kumar’s Bench, his counsel –– among other things –– contended that his case was squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment in Harbans Lal’s case, against which an SLP and review petition filed by the state government had already been dismissed.

The counsel added another Division Bench judgment reiterated the decision. Yet, the petitioner’s claim for grant of pension under the old pension scheme was rejected by passing three different speaking orders.

She added it was incumbent upon the respondents to grant the benefit of the judgment in Harbans Lal’s case to all the similarly situated employees, including the petitioner.

“Once the matter has already been settled up to the Supreme Court, an employee should not be compelled to approach the high court,” she added.

Taking a note of the submissions, Justice Kumar observed prima facie it appeared that the petitioner’s claim had wrongly been rejected by the respondents by giving one or the other reason.

Issuing notice of motion for April third week, the Bench added: “In the meantime, the respondent shall file a specific affidavit detailing the reasons as to why the claim raised by the employees, who are similarly situated, are not granted relief and being compelled to approach this Court time and again by filing one or the other petition for redressal of their grievances, which already stands settled in Harbans Lal’s case”.

About The Author

Tribune News Service

The Tribune News Service brings you the latest news, analysis and insights from the region, India and around the world. Follow the Tribune News Service for a wide-ranging coverage of events as they unfold, with perspective and clarity.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.