SHAKUNTALA PURI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer made by the petitioner in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is for quashing letter No. 299, dated 12.7.2004 (P-4), sent by the Principal, Hindi Putri Pathshala Senior Secondary, Khanna-respondent No. 4, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension on attaining the age of superannuation. It has also been prayed that clause 6(6) of 'the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Schools Retirement Benefits Scheme, 1992 (for brevity, 'the 1992 Scheme') be also declared ultra vires of the Constitution. A further direction has been sought to the respondents to count the service of the petitioner as qualifying service from the date of her initial appointment i.e. 16.10.1989 to 31.7.2000, which is more than 10 years, for fulfilling the requirement of clause 8 of the 1992 Scheme of completing 10 years of service.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was selected and appointed as JBT teacher on 16.10.1989 in the pay scale of Rs. 480-880, which was revised to Rs. 1200-2100. Her appointment was on Government aided post. She remained on probation for a period of one year. After the appointment of the petitioner, her case was sent by her school to the Director, Public Instructions (Schools)-respondent No. 2 for approval, which was granted on 29.7.1991. She was conveyed the factum of approval by the District Education Officer stating that the approval to her appointment has been granted with effect from 16.10.1989 (P-2). She was also held entitled to the grade to Rs. 1200-2100 plus Dearness Allowance with effect from 16.10.1989 in accordance with the rules applicable from time to time. She retired from service on 31.10.2000. She applied for payment of her retiral benefits in terms of the 1992 Scheme. Eventually, she sent a legal notice on 29.6.2004, which was replied on 12.7.2004 (P-4). The case of the petitioner for payment of pension and other retiral benefits was rejected on the ground that she had not completed 10 years of service as her Provident Fund was deducted with effect from 1.8.1991. In other words, her service from 16.10.1989 to 1.8.1991, has not been considered as qualifying service within the meaning of clause 8 of the 1992 Scheme. She has been refused retiral benefits because she failed to fulfill the condition of service for a period of 10 years.

(3.) Mr. H.S. Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner fulfills all the requirements of qualifying service as provided by clause 6(1), namely, that she joined the service after attaining the age of 18 years and took charge of the aided post on regular basis. He has also invited our attention to Clause 8 of the 1992 Scheme, which provide that an employee is entitled for pension under the 1992 Scheme only after he/she completes 10 years of qualifying service. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner had joined service on 16.10.1989 and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2000 and, therefore, she has completed more than 11 years of regular service. He has maintained that merely because approval to the case of the petitioner was accorded by the District Education Officer on 29.7.1991 and consequently the Contributory Provident Fund was deducted from that day, would not result into confiscation of her service of about 1 year and 9 months, especially when the scheme from under Rule 22A of the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Schools Employees (Security of Service), Rules, 1981 (for brevity, 'the 1981 Rules'), specifically provides that the scheme is to apply to all those who have been working on aided post on or after 5.2.1987.