Punjab & Haryana High Court Full Bench Finds No Conflict In Division Bench Rulings On Counting Of Past Service For Pension

The Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has answered a reference on whether two Division Bench judgments concerning counting of past service for pensionary benefits were contradictory, holding that there exists no real conflict between them as they were rendered in distinct factual and statutory contexts.Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Justice Jagmohan Bansal said, "An alleged conflict between judgments must be real, direct and irreconcilable on a question of law arising from comparable facts and governed by the same legal regime. A divergence in outcome or reference to a policy or instruction in different factual or statutory contexts, does not ipso facto constitute a conflict. Artificial inconsistencies must not be created by reading judgments dehors the issues framed, the statutory framework applicable or the precise relief sought."The Court clarified that the executive instructions and statutory schemes do not operate in abstraction and their interpretation cannot be divorced from the purpose they seek to achieve or the class of cases they are intended to govern. When judgments interpret different policies or statutory schemes, even if overlapping factual backgrounds exist, they cannot be said to be in conflict so long as each is confined to its own contextual and legal framework, it added.The petitioners relied upon the Division Bench ruling in Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and another v. Prem Parkash Gupta and others (LPA No. 1805 of 2016, decided on 05.10.2016), wherein benefit of past service had been extended. It was pointed out that the SLP against the said judgment had been dismissed.However, the State relied upon a subsequent Division Bench decision in State of Haryana and others v. Nathu Singh (LPA No. 1105 of 2017, decided on 29.05.2018), where such benefit had been denied. The SLP against this judgment had also been dismissed.In view of the alleged contradictory views on nearly identical facts, the Single Judge referred the matter to a Larger Bench to determine: Whether there is any contradiction between the two Division Bench judgments; and If so, which of the two views lays down the correct law.The lead case before the Single Judge was Gurudev and others v. State of Haryana and another (CWP-2465-2017). The petitioners were originally employed with HSMITC. Following retrenchment in July 2002, they were later re-appointed under a reservation policy framed for retrenched employees. They sought counting of their pre-retrenchment service for pension, relying on:The Division Bench judgment in Prem Parkash Gupta; and a Finance Department policy dated 07.01.2002 regarding counting of past service in cases of absorption between Government and autonomous/statutory bodies.The State opposed the claim, contending that the petitioners were re-appointed under a statutory scheme dated 21.06.2006 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution;The scheme required submission of an affidavit declaring that re-employment would be treated as a fresh appointment and no benefit of past service would be claimed, similar conditions were incorporated in the appointment letters; and the statutory notification dated 21.06.2006 had not been challenged.In Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board v. Prem Parkash Gupta, the Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's decision allowing counting of past service.The issue before the Court was whether the claim fell within the four corners of the Government Memorandum dated 07.01.2002. The State had argued that Clause 9 of the circular required employees to exercise an option within a stipulated period, failing which past service could not be counted.The Division Bench rejected this contention, holding that the employees were not in service when the circular was issued and therefore could not be denied benefit for not exercising an option. The Court affirmed extension of pensionary benefit.In State of Haryana v. Nathu Singh, the Division Bench dealt with a retrenched HSMITC employee who had been re-employed under the statutory scheme dated 21.06.2006.The scheme expressly stipulated that re-employment would be treated as a fresh appointment and that employees would not claim benefit of past service. The appointment letter also incorporated this condition.Distinguishing Prem Parkash Gupta, the Division Bench held that the employee in Nathu Singh had accepted re-appointment under a statutory scheme framed under Article 309 and had undertaken not to claim past service benefits. It further observed that Prem Parkash Gupta related to a different factual and policy framework and involved continuity-type circumstances rather than retrenchment followed by fresh appointment under a statutory scheme.Accordingly, the benefit of counting past service was denied.Full Bench Analysis: Doctrine of PrecedentThe Full Bench examined the alleged conflict through the lens of the “Doctrine of Precedent”. Relying on Supreme Court jurisprudence, including, ...

Punjab & Haryana High Court Full Bench Finds No Conflict In Division Bench Rulings On Counting Of Past Service For Pension

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags