The Punjab and Haryana Excessive Court docket has termed it “unlucky” {that a} man was denied pensionary advantages for 56 years, regardless of finishing the qualifying service. Justice Sudeepti Sharma dominated in favour of Punjab State Transport Division worker Ram Lal Prabhakar, granting him pensionary advantages from the date of his resignation’s acceptance on July 7, 1964.
The case stemmed from Prabhakar’s petition difficult a 2001 civil court docket choice that dismissed his plea for pension. An appellate court docket upheld the dismissal in 2003.
Prabhakar joined the Punjab State Transport Division on Might 18, 1948, as a everlasting worker in a pensionable put up. He was deputed to the Punjab State Small Industries Company on November 21, 1962. His deputation ended on October 30, 1963, however he was neither recalled to his dad or mum division nor absorbed completely by the company.
In December 1963, Prabhakar wrote to the company expressing his willingness to forego pensionary advantages if absorbed. Nevertheless, he was neither absorbed nor reinstated, forcing him to resign efficient June 19, 1964, along with his resignation accepted on July 7, 1964.
The petitioner argued that the courts under misinterpreted Rule 3.17, dismissing his swimsuit and enchantment on the bottom of limitation. He contended that pensionary advantages represent a recurring trigger, making limitation inapplicable. The state counsel, nonetheless, defended the decrease courts’ choices and cited Rule 3.17(A)(1)(5) to argue that Prabhakar was not entitled to pensionary advantages.
Justice Sharma noticed that Prabhakar’s letter expressing willingness to forego pensionary advantages was contingent on absorption, which by no means materialised. She held that the letter couldn’t be used as estoppel in opposition to his pension rights.
The court docket famous that Prabhakar served in a pensionable put up for 14 years from 1948 to 1962 earlier than his deputation and accomplished 16 years of service by the point his resignation was accepted in 1964. Because the qualifying service for pension on the time was 10 years, Prabhakar met the factors.
The judgment emphasised that pensionary rights can’t be denied to people in pensionable service, stating that the respondent division’s actions violated established guidelines. Justice Sharma directed the state to grant Prabhakar his long-overdue pension.
