CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20559 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20559 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: MARCH11 2014 Satish Kumar Jain .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?.
2.
To be referred to the Reporters or not?.
3.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
Present: Mr.Suman Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State.
***** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
(ORAL) Petitioner has approached this Court assailing the communication dated 11.10.2007 (Annexure P-6) vide which the claim of the petitioner for counting his service rendered by him as Officer of the Hisar-SiRs.Kshetriya Gram Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'Gramin Bank').Hisar, from 06.05.1991 to 25.09.1997 has not been counted for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits.
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Officer in Gramin Bank, Hisar on 06.05.1991.
He continued with the said bank till 25.09.1993 when he Harish Kumar 2014.03.18 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20559 of 2011 -2- applied for the post of HCS (Executive) and Allied Service through proper channel and was selected and appointed as a Block Development and Panchyat Officer.
Petitioner on his selection, resigned from the post held by him in the Gramin Bank on 25.09.1997 and immediately joined the very next date on 26.09.1997 as a Block Development & Panchayat Officer.
Thereafter, the petitioner was nominated to HCS (Executive) Services on 04.10.2004 and continues as such.
He claimed the benefit of counting his previous service rendered by him from 06.05.1991 to 25.09.1997 as an Officer of the Gramin Bank for the purpose of counting it for the pensionary benefits.
The said claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents vide communication dated 11.10.2007 (Annexure P-6) holding therein that the Gramin Bank is a Public Sector Undertaking and is not covered under the instructions dated 07.01.2002 (Annexure P-2).This order has been assailed by the petitioner through the present writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents have proceeded to misread the instructions dated 07.01.2002 (Annexure P-2).He contends that the petitioner was working under an authority which is indeed a Statutory Body as per the definition provided for in the aforesaid instructions.
The requirement as per the definition is the employee who has either been a member of the Statutory Body or an Autonomous Body defined therein except for those who were specifically excluded in the explanation clause would be entitled for the benefit of counting his past service.
He thus contends that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner is not justified On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the Harish Kumar 2014.03.18 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20559 of 2011 -3- Gramin Bank is a Public Sector Undertaking established by the Central Government statute i.e the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976, with a share of Central Government in the bank's capital to the extent of 50% and that of the State Government only 15% with sponsor bank Punjab National Bank having 35% share.
Since it is a Public Sector Undertaking which is specifically excluded in the explanation clause to the definition of Statutory Body/Autonomous Body as provided in Clause 3 of the said instructions.
The claim as made by the petitioner in the present writ petition cannot be accepted.
His further contention is that the instructions dated 07.01.2002 only grants benefit to the employees of the State Autonomous Bodies or Statutory Bodies which are both under the Government of Haryana and since the Statutory Body, even if, as projected by the petitioner is accepted the same being not under the control of Haryana Government will not entitle the petitioner for the claim as made by him.
I have heard the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.
The facts as asserted by the petitioner and as pleaded by the respondents being not in dispute do not require to be restated here as the question which needs to be responded is 'whether the instructions dated 07.01.2002 would bring the Grimin Bank within the ambit of Statutory Body or a Public Sector Undertaking?.' Instructions dated 07.01.2002 (Annexure P-2) deals with counting of service for the purpose of pension of the employees of the State Government on their appointment in an Autonomous Body (Statutory Body) under Haryana Government or on seeking absorption in a State Harish Kumar 2014.03.18 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20559 of 2011 -4- Autonomous Body or vice-veRs.and also on appointment from one Autonomous Body to another (Statutory Body) both under State of Haryana.
Definition has been provided under Clause 3 of the instructions dated 07.01.2002 (Annexure P-2) which reads as follows:- “3.
Definition of Statutory Body/Autonomous Body: In order to eligible for the benefits under this Office Memorandum, an employee must have rendered service in a State Autonomous/Statutory Body.
(i) that has been created under a Statute/Act of a State/Central Government; and (ii) is financed wholly or substantially from the cess or Central/State Government grants.
“Substantially' means that more than 50% of the expenditure of the autonomous bodies is met through cess or Central/State Government grants.
Explanation: A State Autonomous Bodies includes a State University but does not include a Public Sector Undertaking/Public Enterprise/Company registered under the Companies Act/Society registered under the Societies Registration Act/and private bodies and managements.
A perusal of the above would show that for a body to be a Statutory Body, two conditions are specifically provided; first, that it should be a creation of a Statute/Act either of the State or the Central Government, which condition the Gramin Bank fulfills as it has been established under the Central Government statute (Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976).and the second condition is its mode of financing which mandate also is fulfilled as has been provided under the Clause (ii) as the share of the Central Government in the Gramin Bank capital is 50%, State Government is 15% Harish Kumar 2014.03.18 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20559 of 2011 -5- and the sponsor bank Punjab National Bank is 35%.
The explanation which is appended to the definition deals with State Autonomous Bodies which definition would not apply to the case of the Gramin Bank for the reason that it is a Statutory Body and not an Autonomous Body.
The 'explanation clause', therefore, would not be applicable which includes the Public Sector Undertaking.
If that be so, the petitioner being an employee of a Statutory Body where the financing is primarily of the State/Central Government, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of past service rendered by him in the Gramin Bank, the impugned communication dated 11.10.2007 (Annexure P-6).therefore, cannot sustain and is hereby set aside.
The present writ petition is allowed and direction is issued to the respondents to count the service rendered by the petitioner from 06.05.1991 to 25.09.1997 for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits.
March 11, 2014 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) Harish JUDGE Harish Kumar 2014.03.18 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document