CHAMAN LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
LAWS(SC)-2014-5-64
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
May 16,2014
CHAMAN LAL
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. V. SHRI D.N. RAMPAL,DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL [REFERRED TO]UDIT NARAIN SINGH MALPAHARIA VS. ADDITIONAL MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
RANJEET MAL VS. GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY BARODA HOUSE NEW DELHI [REFERRED TO]
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION VS. JAGJIT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
ANAND BUTTONS LTD VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
K K BHALLA VS. STATE OF M P [REFERRED TO]
DISTRICT COLLECTOR SRIKAKULAM VS. BAGATHI KRISHNA RAO [REFERRED TO]
FULJIT KAUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
AKSHAYA KUMAR SWAIN VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2017-1-96] [REFERRED TO]SOMATH HALDAR VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-6-21] [REFERRED TO]
R. MUTHUKUMAR VS. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR TANGEDCO [LAWS(SC)-2022-2-31] [REFERRED TO]
SANDIP KUMAR, VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-5-35] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAYBHAI MAGANBHAI PATEL VS. NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(GJH)-2018-1-436] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN GARG AND ORS. VS. SHAMSHER SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-3-18] [REFERRED TO]
DALPATSINGH HANSRAJ RAJPUROHIT VS. VADODARA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(GJH)-2021-10-76] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2019-11-242] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2020-5-86] [REFERRED TO]
R.CHANDRASEKAR VS. COMMISSIONER [LAWS(MAD)-2022-8-157] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ODISHA VS. ANUP KUMAR SENAPATI [LAWS(SC)-2019-9-50] [REFERRED TO]
BHALLA RAM S/O SHRI ANDARAM VS. VIRENDRA DUDI S/O SHRI BUDHARAM [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-7-164] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH DAS VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND, [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-10-41] [REFERRED TO]
RANJEET KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-11-154] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHANDRA SAMAL VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2016-4-74] [REFERRED]
STATE OF ODISHA AND ANOTHER (IN BOTH THE APPEALS) VS. SRI LOKANATH BEHERA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ORI)-2018-9-3] [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT VS. OM PARKASH CHAUTALA [LAWS(P&H)-2020-11-128] [REFERRED TO]
NIKKU RAM VS. SECRETARY SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT [LAWS(HPH)-2021-1-18] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JHARKHAND VS. ABDUL QAYUM [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-12-52] [REFERRED TO]
FAKIRUDDIN MOLLA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2017-12-161] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. INDIRA KUMARI [LAWS(RAJ)-2024-5-3] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2022-8-86] [REFERRED TO]
ANKIT @ AAKASH BABUBHAI PATEL (BORAD) VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-7-202] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MANCHUI JANIKHAM [LAWS(GAU)-2022-5-97] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. LALDAWNGLIANI W/O SHRI THATHRINA VS. SMT. NGURTHANKHUMI D/O R. THANHLIRA [LAWS(GAU)-2016-2-85] [REFERRED TO]
VISHWANADHAN VS. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY [LAWS(KER)-2017-3-77] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. BABY DEVI VS. SMT. MADHURI DEVI & ANR. [LAWS(JHAR)-2018-1-186] [REFERRED TO]
PARTH BIPINCHANDRA PATEL VS. SARDAR PATEL UNIVERSITY [LAWS(GJH)-2017-4-66] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR JHANJI VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2019-12-218] [REFERRED TO]
MAMTA VS. SANTOSH AND OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-3-68] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(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, Punjab on 1.6.1998 and stood superannuated on 31.3.2002.
B. The appellant instituted Civil Suit No.275 of 2004 claiming retrial benefits in view of letter dated 20.4.1998 issued by the Govt. of Punjab which provided for regularisation of ad hoc employees by absorbing them against the departmental posts. The said suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 23.5.2006.
C. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred Civil Appeal No.122 of 2006. It was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 16.9.2008.
D. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the Regular Second Appeal which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree. Hence, this appeal.
(3.)Shri D.K. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that as the appellant had been absorbed in the Fish Farmers Development Agency, he is entitled to take the benefit of entire service rendered in various places. Thus, the courts below committed an error in refusing the relief of pension and other retrial benefits. The appellant had been given a hostile discrimination while a similarly situated person, namely, Charanjit Lal got a decree from the Civil Court, Gurdaspur on 16.9.1996 in Suit No.4 of 1992. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
(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, Punjab on 1.6.1998 and stood superannuated on 31.3.2002.
B. The appellant instituted Civil Suit No.275 of 2004 claiming retrial benefits in view of letter dated 20.4.1998 issued by the Govt. of Punjab which provided for regularisation of ad hoc employees by absorbing them against the departmental posts. The said suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 23.5.2006.
C. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred Civil Appeal No.122 of 2006. It was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 16.9.2008.
D. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the Regular Second Appeal which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree. Hence, this appeal.
(3.)Shri D.K. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that as the appellant had been absorbed in the Fish Farmers Development Agency, he is entitled to take the benefit of entire service rendered in various places. Thus, the courts below committed an error in refusing the relief of pension and other retrial benefits. The appellant had been given a hostile discrimination while a similarly situated person, namely, Charanjit Lal got a decree from the Civil Court, Gurdaspur on 16.9.1996 in Suit No.4 of 1992. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.