- (1.) Om Parkash, petitioner joined as Peon on regular basis in the year 1984 in the Municipal Committee (now Municipal Corporation), Karnal. In the year 1999, Octroi in the State of Haryana was abolished and due to which employees of Municipal Committee, Karnal were declared surplus. Therefore, they were adjusted in the various departments/Organizations/Corporation in the State of Haryana by way of transfer. Consequently, vide order dated 30.12.1999 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner was appointed as Peon in the Directorate of Food and Supplies Department, Haryana-respondent No.2 on transfer basis w.e.f. 30.12.1999. It comes out that the petitioner was, accordingly, directed to join the office of Director of Food and Supplies Department, Haryanarespondent No.2 on 25.01.2000. After some time, he applied for leave and thereafter, became absent from duty. Later on, he submitted his resignation. However, the Department decided to hold inquiry. Therefore, vide order dated 23.04.2004, his services were terminated by the Director, Food and Supplies Department, Haryana.
(2.) In the present petition, the petitioner seeks release of gratuity, leave encashment, arrears of revision of pay, provident funds, revised pension etc. along with interest @ 18% per annum. It also comes out that during the pendency of the present petition, GPF amounting to Rs. 31,524/- was paid to the petitioner before this Court on 18.05.2016, vide demand draft No.047707, dated 02.05.2016. Now, the dispute is regarding the release of remaining part of the pensionary benefits. Respondent No.2-the Director, Food and Supplies Department, Haryana, in its reply has taken the stand that petitioner had joined its department on 25.01.2000 as Peon. The petitioner submitted certain leave applications dated 24.03.2000, 10.04.2000, 21.04.2000, 02.05.2000 and 23.05.2000. Respondent No.2 also states that Rule 4.4.(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rule, Volume-II provides that previous service of a Government employee, who is transferred to a temporary appointment is forfeited by his resigning the temporary appointment and taking up another temporary appointment of his own accord, reinstated on appeal or revision, is entitled to count his past service. Therefore, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the amount of reduction made by respondent No.4 i.e. Municipal Corporation, Karnal. Respondent No.4 on the other hand took the stand that since the services of the petitioner was transferred to respondent No.2. Therefore, respondent No.2 is liable to pay all the benefits payable to the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file. Undoubtedly, after the abolition of Octroi, the petitioner was declared surplus and on the basis of letter of the Government dated 20.12.1999, he was appointed on transfer basis in the office of Director, Food and Supplies Department, Haryana-respondent No.2. Admittedly, the petitioner joined the said department. The date of joining is not disputed.
(3.) The petitioner attended the said office for a short while and thereafter, became absent and his services were ultimately terminated. Now, the question would arise as to whether the Municipal Corporation is liable to pay all the benefits payable to the petitioner or respondent No.2 has to pay the benefits The appointment letter dated 30.12.1999 (Annexure P-1) shows that the petitioner will not claim the seniority in the department, where his services were transferred. However, there is no bar, claiming the other benefits. Further the communication dated 20.12.1999 (Annexure R-4/1) from the Financial Commissioner & Secretary to Government Haryana, Local Government Department, Chandigarh, shows that the appointment was made on transfer basis and that the employees shall be eligible for pay and pensionary benefits of their past service. However, no benefit of past service in seniority matters shall be given. In this way, the petitioner is entitled to all the pay and pensionary benefits of his past service in the department, in which his service were transferred. There is another communication dated 02.03.2007 (Annexure R-4/2) from the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Finance Department, which clarified that the pensionary benefits in all such cases may be authorized to the entire qualifying service of the employees including their service under Municipalities. Then, there is another communication dated 31.08.2007 (Annexure R-4/3) from the Director, Urban Local Bodies, Haryana, Chandigarh, wherein while taking note of the absorption of the employees of the Municipal Council and Municipalities and their case regarding pension, it was stated that a decision is taken that the Accountant General would sanction their pension, pension prorate, amount of gratuity without deposit by the Municipal Council/Municipalities absorbed in the different departments.;