Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who is presently serving as a Sweeper -cum -Chowkidar under the Department of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, State of Punjab has filed the instant writ petition impugning the memo dated 29.1.2013, whereby the New Contributory Pension Scheme has been held to be applicable to the petitioner. Further prayer is for issuance of directions to the respondent -authorities to regularize the services of the petitioner for the period w.e.f. 3.9.2003 to 11.11.2004. Yet, another grievance raised is that the petitioner has not been released his salary w.e.f. February, 2013. It is not in dispute that the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 3.9.2003 passed by the President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar. Such order of termination was impugned by the petitioner by filing CWP No. 14239 of 2003, wherein the specific prayer was to quash such order of termination dated 3.9.2003 and to reinstate him with all consequential benefits. It so transpires that during the course of hearing of such writ petition, this Court was apprised that one post of Sweeper -cum -Chowkidar was lying vacant in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Hoshiarpur. Learned counsel for the petitioner in that writ petition suffered a statement that the petitioner was willing to accept such post and accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 5.8.2004 with the direction that the petitioner may be adjusted against the vacant post at Hoshiarpur.
(2.) SUFFICE it to observe that the validity of the termination order dated 3.9.2003 was never gone into by this Court and as such the same was never set aside. The petitioner was, accordingly, adjusted on the post of Sweeper -cum -Chowkidar w.e.f. 11.11.2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the New Contributory Pension Scheme is applicable only qua new entrants w.e.f. 1.1.2004 and since the petitioner had already rendered 5 years service as on the date of his termination dated 3.9.2003 and the petitioner thereafter having been taken back in service in November, 2004, it would be deemed that the order of termination dated 3.9.2003 does not survive. Counsel would submit that the petitioner on the other hand is vested with a right for his services to be regularized even for such period i.e. 3.9.2003 till 11.11.2004. Consequently, it has been urged that it is the old pension scheme which would apply to the petitioner as his initial appointment prior to his service being terminated was of the year 1998. Furthermore, counsel would submit that even the salary to the petitioner w.e.f. February, 2013 has not been released and that too without any justifiable basis.
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length, I am of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the impugned memo dated 29.1.2013.;