A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Writ petition for interest on delayed payment of retiral dues – Maintainability of -- By now, it is well settled that a writ petition for payment of interest on delay in release of the amount representing retiral benefits is maintainable

(Para 6)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Disciplinary proceedings – Pendency of – Amount of Contributory Provident Fund could not be withheld – Contributory provident fund released in two instalments; firstly, on 07.12.2006 ? 6,11,693/-, secondly on 01.08.2017 ?10,40,578/- -- Petitioner was relieved from service on 24.04.2015 -- Thus, after giving three months, a reasonable period, interest is payable to the petitioner with effect from 01.08.2015 on the delayed payment of the amount representing CPF – Interest @ 8% p.a. awarded for delayed period.

(Para 7, 10)

C. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Punjab Civil Service Rules, Rule 2.2 (c)(1), Chapter II, Vol.II and Rule 8.21 (aa) Volume-I Chapter-VIII – Disciplinary proceedings – Withholding of Leave encashment/ Gratuity – Interest thereupon – Punishment for recovery of Rs.5,000/- passed in 15.2.2017, attained finality – Delay in release of leave encashment amount as well as gratuity – After giving three months reasonable period for release of the amount, the interest is payable with effect from 01.06.2017 on the aforesaid amount -- Interest @ 8% p.a. awarded for delayed period.

(Para 8, 10)

D. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Salary for a period worked on interim order – Recovery of -- Held, recovery could not be made because petitioner, under the interim order passed by the Court, had worked -- Writ petitioner held entitled to be paid the salary for the period he had actually worked.

(Para 9)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Contractual Extension Lecturer -- Minimum requirement of NET qualification – Whether the Appellants can be replaced by those possessing the NET qualification without being granted an opportunity to acquire such qualification? -- Held, there is no policy to grant time to serving contractual Extension Lecturers, not possessing NET time to possess such qualification while continuing in service, it is not possible for the Court to dictate to the Respondents to provide such a facility to the Appellants -- Writ prayer replacing the Appellants should not be themselves engaged on a contractual basis – Held, since the Appellants do not possess the mandatory NET qualification and, as such, cannot continue, there is no requirement to consider the submission as to how they are likely to be replaced.

(Para 2, 6-7)

Constitution of India, Article 15, 15(6), 16, 16(6), 30, 139, 145(3) -- Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Rule 38 – Challenge to insertion of 10% Reservation for economic Weaker section – Interpretation of Constitution -- Substantial question of law – Matters which involve substantial questions of law as to interpretation of constitutional provisions they are required to be heard by a Bench of five Judges -- Whether the impugned Amendment Act violates basic structure of the Constitution, by applying the tests of ‘width’ and ‘identity’ with reference to equality provisions of the Constitution, is a matter which constitutes substantial question of law -- Further, on the plea of ceiling of 50% for affirmative action, it is the case of the Union of India that though ordinarily 50% is the rule but same will not prevent to amend the Constitution itself in view of the existing special circumstances to uplift the members of the society belonging to economically weaker sections -- Even such questions also constitute as substantial questions of law to be examined by a Bench of five Judges as per Article 145(3) of the Constitution read with Order XXXVIII Rule 1(1) of the Supreme Court of Rules, 2013 – Challenge pending before various High Court by way of writ petitions -- Transfer petitions allowed and Supreme Court referred batch of cases, including the cases covered by transfer applications, to a Bench of five Judges.

(Para 16)

Service Law – Appointment of Labour Welfare Superintendent – Eligibility qualification is post graduate degree or diploma in Social Work, Labour Welfare, Industrial Relations or Personnel Management -- Held, MBA degree cannot be regarded as allied to a post graduate degree or diploma in Social Work, Labour Welfare, Industrial Relations or Personnel Management -- Appellant as an employer was best suited to judge whether the degree of the first respondent was in an allied subject -- Unless this assessment was perverse or contrary to the requirements prescribed, the Tribunal had no reason to interfere –Tribunal was manifestly in error in holding that the first respondent was qualified merely because he studied two subjects as a part of his MBA degree programme, namely, Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations and Labour Legislation -- High Court has simply affirmed the view of the Tribunal -- Appeal allowed, impugned judgment and order set aside

(Para 2, 9, 10)

Disaster Management Act, 2005 (53 of 2005), Section 10(2)(l) – Constitution of India, Article 14, 19(1)(g) -- Lock down period during pandemic Covid-19 – Full wages to employees for 50 days – Notification/Order issued by Union of India – Power of – Challenged being violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) -- Both Industry and Labourers need each other -- No Industry or establishment can survive without employees/labourers and vice versa – Held, efforts should be made to sort out the differences and disputes between the workers and the employers regarding payment of wages of above 50 days and if any settlement or negotiation can be entered into between them without regard to the order dated 29.03.2020, the said steps may restore congenial work atmosphere – Directions issued for following interim measures which can be availed by all the private establishment, industries, factories and workers Trade Unions/ Employees Associations etc. which may be facilitated by the State Authorities: -

i) The private establishment, industries, employers who are willing to enter into negotiation and settlement with the workers/employees regarding payment of wages for 50 days or for any other period as applicable in any particular State during which their industrial establishment was closed down due to lockdown, may initiate a process of negotiation with their employees organization and enter into a settlement with them and if they are unable to settle by themselves submit a request to concerned labour authorities who are entrusted with the obligation under the different statute to conciliate the dispute between the parties who on receiving such request, may call the concerned Employees Trade Union/workers Association/ workers to appear on a date for negotiation, conciliation and settlement. In event a settlement is arrived at, that may be acted upon by the employers and workers irrespective of the order dated 29.03.2020 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs.

ii) Those employers’ establishments, industries, factories which were working during the lockdown period although not to their capacity can also take steps as indicated in direction No.(i).

iii) The private establishments, industries, factories shall permit the workers/employees to work in their establishment who are willing to work which may be without prejudice to rights of the workers/employees regarding unpaid wages of above 50 days. The private establishments, factories who proceed to take steps as per directions (i) and (ii) shall publicise and communicate about their such steps to workers and employees for their response/participation. The settlement, if any, as indicated above shall be without prejudice to the rights of employers and employees which is pending adjudication in these writ petitions.

iv) The Central Government, all the States/UTs through their Ministry of Labour shall circulate and publicise this order for the benefit of all private establishment, employers, factories and workers/employees.

(Para 7, 36, 37)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- HCS (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987, Rule 7 -- Dismissal from service -- Absent from duty from 07.04.2001 to 07.04.2014 -- Taken back in service vide order dated 01.08.2014 in compliance of order passed by Governor -- While allowing the memorial appeal of the petitioner, it has been categorically observed that someone in an influential position in the department has manipulated the things against the petitioner -- Thus, the petitioner was always ready and willing to work but was deprived by the respondents – Held, Principal of No Work No Pay cannot be invoked -- Petition allowed and respondents are directed to release the salary of the petitioner for the period w.e.f 07.04.2001 to 07.04.2014 – Petitioner is held entitled to all consequential benefits.

(Para 2, 16-18)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of the Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003, Rule 4 – Ex-gratia/ Compassionate appointment – Ex-gratia financial assistance -- Death of employee on 29.06.2001 – Compassionate appointment was sought  for petitioner no.2/son -- Eventually sought financial assistance under Rules, 2003 in lieu of employment and accepted the payment of Rs. 2.5 lakhs released on 23.10.2007 -- Thereafter, the petitioners maintained a stoic silence and it was only on dated 12.09.2019 a legal notice was served for grant of compassionate appointment – Though petitioner No. 2 attained the age of employment in 2004 besides even the legal notice dated 12.06.2019 having been served only on behalf of petitioner No. 1, the writ petition is not maintainable, besides is highly belated -- Writ petition is dismissed.

(Para 10)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Mandi Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector – Eligible qualification -- Petitioner has done Master of Technology (Computer Assisted Design / Computer Assisted Manufacturing) full time from Punjab Technical University -- Same is recognised by AICTE – Held, the petitioner, fulfils the conditions for consideration for selection and appointment to the post of Mandi Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector, as per merit.

(Para 11)

A. Constitution of India, Section 226 -- Transfer of employee – Interference in -- It is by now well settled that the transfer is an incidence of service -- Orders of transfer are open to interference if such orders have been passed in mala fide exercise of power, in violation of any statutory provision or have been issued by an authority not having the jurisdiction to direct transfer.

(Para 6)

B. Constitution of India, Section 226 -- Transfer policy – Enforceability -- Right of -- It is well settled that terms and conditions contained in a transfer policy do not vest an enforceable right in an employee.

(Para 8)

C. Constitution of India, Section 226 -- Transfer of employee – Reasons of – Requirement of -- There would be no obligation upon the employer to record reasons for effecting transfer -- No specific pleadings in the petition alleging mala fides against any senior official of the respondent department or against the transferring authority -- Under such circumstances mala fide cannot be inferred -- No interference in the matter is warranted.

(Para 10,11)

A. Civil Contempt -- To constitute civil contempt, it must be established that disobedience of the order is wilful, deliberate and with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom.

(Para 12)

B. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 10(1)(d) – General directions -- Civil Contempt -- No specific direction has been given to the Corporation to regularise the concerned workmen only in the Departmental Labour System -- Furthermore, the Departmental Labour System is now a dying cadre and the policy of the Corporation at the relevant time entailed regularisation of such workmen only under the Direct Payment System (DPS) -- No contempt action can be initiated on the basis of general direction to the respondents to regularise and departmentalise the concerned workmen -- No case for initiating contempt against the respondent Corporation and its officers has been made out.

(Para 23-25)

A. Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (25 of 1961), Section 54 – Dismissal of employee -- Embezzlement charge – Inquiry Report -- Inquiry Report does not even reflect any consideration, worth the name, of the documentary evidence by the Inquiry Officer to support his ultimate findings -- Inquiry Officer patently went by the oral evidence adduced before him, which was discussed at length, but there is neither any detailed reference to nor discussion about the documentary evidence marked through the said witnesses -- Though it would not have been possible for the Inquiry Officer to record individual findings on each of the 3549 fake entries allegedly made by the petitioner, he did not even choose to randomly test and analyze at least some such entries and record proper findings thereon – Dismissal order and Inquiry report are incurably tainted by illegality and arbitrariness apart from being violative of the principles of natural justice.

(Para 67,68, 71)

B. Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (25 of 1961), Section 54 -- Destruction of record – Burden of proof -- Inquiry Officer merely noted that the ledger sheets were missing and held that ‘there was no evidence to rebut that ledger sheets missing have not been stolen/ destroyed/concealed by the Charged Official’ -- Inquiry Officer thereupon opined that the allegation that these documents were destroyed or stolen by the petitioner stood proved – Burden of proving the charges was shifted upon the petitioner in reverse – Held, it was for the Bank to substantiate and prove that the petitioner had stolen the ledger sheets of his own accounts from the two Branches and not for the petitioner to rebut such a presumption, as postulated by the Inquiry Officer -- Dismissal order and Inquiry report are incurably tainted by illegality and arbitrariness apart from being violative of the principles of natural justice.

(Para 69, 71)

C. Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (25 of 1961), Section 54 -- Ex-parte inquiry – Cross-examination of witnesses – Right of -- Non-cooperation attributed to the petitioner to justify his exclusion from the inquiry is wholly insufficient as the Inquiry Officer himself recorded that even thereafter, he invited the petitioner to participate in the proceedings -- However, there is no indication of the Inquiry Officer putting the petitioner on notice – Petitioner ought not to have been deprived of an opportunity to at least cross-examine the witnesses, two of whom were the authors of the final reports, even if he had been set ex parte, which, in fact, he was not -- He was however denied such opportunity -- Thus, the inquiry proceedings stand vitiated on this ground.

(Para 70, 71)

A. Constitution of India, Article 311 -- Removal of probationer on assessment of performance – Enquiry -- Opportunity of hearing -- Requirement of -- Probationer not strictly covered within the umbrella of Article 311 -- Merely because ACRs were consistently marked ‘Good’, it cannot be a ground to bestow him with a right to continue in service – Neither any specific misconduct has been attributed nor any allegation made – Order is based upon overall assessment of the performance during the period of probation, which was not found satisfactory – Such an inference which can be a valid foundation to dispense with services of a probationer does not warrant holding of an enquiry in terms of Article 311 of the Constitution -- In cases of ‘stigmatic’ removal only that a reasonable opportunity of hearing is sine-qua-non.

(Para 14-20)

B. Constitution of India, Article 311 -- Probation period – Nature of -- Entire objective of probation is to provide the employer an opportunity to evaluate the probationer’s performance and test his suitability for a particular post -- Such an exercise is a necessary part of the process of recruitment, and must not be treated lightly -- Written tests and interviews are only attempts to predict a candidate’s possibility of success at a particular job -- True test of suitability is actual performance of duties which can only be applied after the candidate joins and starts working.

(Para 16)

C. Constitution of India, Article 311 -- Removal of probationer – Judicial review of -- If the Court finds that the real motive behind the order was to ‘punish’ the official, it may always strike down the same for want of reasonable opportunity of being heard -- Onus would lie on the probationer to prove that the action taken against him was of punitive characteristics.

(Para 21, 24)

D. Constitution of India, Article 311 -- Appointment of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate – Exercise of power not vested – Removal during probation -- Judicial officer is expected to be in know of Section 36(3) of the NDPS Act, 1985 which expressly ousts competence of a judicial officer below the rank of Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge in NDPS matters -- High Court on administrative side, therefore, justifiably inferred he was prone to act negligently or had the tendency to usurp power which the law does not vest in him -- This was a relevant factor to determine suitability of a probationer judicial officer – Order of discharge whereby services were dispensed with during probation approved.

(Para 23)

Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, Rule 5(ix) -- Dismissal of employee during probation period – Opportunity of hearing – Requirement of-- Order of termination of services is an order of punishment and punitive in nature as this order was in the form of dismissal order, which would ordinarily disqualify the petitioner from further employment under the Government – Plea that order being passed during period of probation and therefore, did not call for any response or hearing from the part of the petitioner is unacceptable – If a decision is taken by the employer to penalize an employee, who is on probation, the provisions of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, are required to be complied with especially when the same are being invoked for terminating the services of an employee.

(Para 7,8)

Service matter -- Pensionary benefits – Right of -- Pendency of complaint – Effect of -- Complaint made by a person against an employee which is still under investigation, cannot be treated as pending departmental proceedings -- In the absence of charge-sheet withholding of the pensionary benefits is totally arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction -- Merely on the basis of a complaint that too before the Vigilance Bureau, the benefits of the petitioner have been wrongly withheld -- Writ petition allowed, the respondents are directed to release all the pensionary benefits of the petitioner forthwith – Petitioner is also held entitled for the grant of interest @ 9% per annum.

(Para 9-20)

Punjab Roadways (Workshop) Rules, 2009 -- Pensionary benefits – Daily wages period – Consideration of -- Deceased was appointed on daily wages on 28.3.1982, termination of services on 25.7.1985 – Ordered to be reinstated with continuity in service with 50% back-wages – Deceased was regularised on 25.04.2003 -- Held, once, the benefit of reinstatement with continuity in service has been granted, then, the service from the year 1982 onwards is to be taken into consideration as qualifying service for computing the pensionary benefits.

(Para 3,4 10-16)

A. Central Reserve Police Force Rules 1955, Rule 16, 31 -- Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1965, Rule 5 – Constitution of India, Article 14 --  Principle of natural justice -- Temporary employee – Termination of – Show-cause notice – Requirement of -- Allegation of desertion and misconduct -- Desertion is a serious allegation, which cannot be proved without any enquiry -- Reason behind the termination order was the allegation of misconduct – Held, it was necessary and incumbent as well as mandatory for the respondents to hold an enquiry -- Even a probationer has protection against the arbitrary termination and probationer is also entitled to certain protection -- Service of temporary employee cannot be terminated arbitrarily or punitively without applying the principle of natural justice -- Termination order of a temporary employee without enquiry cannot be sustained.

(Para 11-15)

B. Central Reserve Police Force Rules 1955, Rule 16, 31 -- Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1965, Rule 5 – Constitution of India, Article 14 --  Temporary employee – Leave without sanction -- Deserter – Misconduct – Termination of -- Petitioner had applied for leave for his own marriage -- Due to compelling circumstances, petitioner left the training centre for undergoing the marriage ceremony -- Date of marriage had already been fixed by his parents and it would have been embarrassment not only for the relatives of the petitioners but more so for the girl side and all the people, who were attending the marriage ceremony -- Rejection of his leave in these circumstances left no choice with the petitioner but to leave as he did – Since, the petitioner did return to join back, the punishment of termination in the present situation is nothing but 'harsh' and therefore deserves to be set aside -- Respondents are directed to take back the petitioner into service forthwith, however, the petitioner shall not be entitled to the back wages.

(Para 20-23)

Haryana Municipal Employees Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1993 -- Municipal Account Code, 1930, Rule 5 – Relinquishment of right to pension -- Non-explanation to illiterate employee – Effect of -- Petitioner rendered service of 30/35 years -- Since the petitioner is illiterate and had merely affixed his thumb impression on the form, it was the duty of the employer/person getting the thumb impression of the petitioner on Form-4, to make the petitioner understand the scope and ambit of the rules as also the implications of giving/not-giving an option for pension under the rules applicable, on the basis of which, the employee giving the option would be entitled to pension and in case of non-giving of option, would not be entitled to pension -- Noting was also required to mention that the entire aspect of the matter had been explained to the employee concerned in the language he understood Form attached by the respondents does not reflect any such noting -- Accordingly, the benefit of the same has to be given to the illiterate petitioner – Writ petition allowed.

(Para 11)

Service matter -- Delay in release of retiral benefits – Paucity of funds – Ground of -- Interest thereupon -- Respondents have not placed on record any fact regarding any impediment in the release of the pensionary benefits of the petitioners after their retirement -- Paucity of funds with the respondent-University, due to which, the pensionary benefits of the petitioners could not be released cannot be accepted – Held, retiral benefits is to be released within a reasonable time and reasonable time fixed by the Full Bench in A.S. Randhawa’s case, 1997(3) SCT 468 is  two months from the date of retirement -- Petitioners held entitled for the interest @ 9% p.a. from the date the benefits became due till the payments were actually released to the petitioners.

(Para 7-16)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II, Rule 3.17(a) – Treating service rendered against leave vacancy for pensioner benefits -- Service rendered on a work-charge establishment and paid out of the contingencies is to be counted as qualifying service – Service which the petitioner had rendered was though temporary but the same cannot be treated as less than the workcharge service -- Services from 24.10.1974 till her services were regularized on 01.05.1981, cannot be excluded from the qualifying service for computing the pensionary benefits -- Respondents directed to treat it as qualifying service -- Writ filed after a period of 12 years -- Delay can be compensated by limiting the arrears for which the petitioner becomes entitled to a period of three years two months prior to filing of the writ petition.

(Para 6-14)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Release of retiral benefits -- Departmental proceedings after retirement – Permissibility of -- Departmental proceedings initiated against the employees after retirement not permissible -- Respondents directed to release the retiral benefits including gratuity and leave encashment holding the penalty orders are not maintainable after retirement along with interest @ 6% p.a.

(Para 7-9)

A. Constitution of India, Article 311 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 13 -- Acquittal in F.I.R. – Departmental proceedings on allegations, which were subject matter of FIR – Enquiry officer fallen in error and actually shows the intention of the authorities not to initiate the departmental enquiry against the petitioner for any other allegation except the allegations which were subject matter of FIR -- After the evidence has been examined by the trial court and it has recorded its findings acquitting the petitioner, the observations in the enquiry report clearly amounts to re-appreciation of evidence.

(Para 10,11)

B. Constitution of India, Article 311 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 13 -- Acquittal in F.I.R. -- Suspension period of an employee – Submission that during the pendency of the criminal case, where employee is acquitted, should be deemed to be on duty for all intents and purposes – Punishment orders quashed, respondents are directed to consequently, re-fix the pay of the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

(Para 14)

Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Rule 16.2(1) -- Service matter – Dismissal from service – Qualifying service for pension – Consideration of -- Petitioner joined service on 16.05.1992, he remained absent from duty from 19.04.2012 and was dismissed on 21.08.2012 -- By the time the dismissal order was passed he had put in more than 20 years of service -- As such, his service period and the length of service rendered by him could not be over-looked and totally ignored by the authorities while dismissing him from service -- Mandate of Rule 16.2(1) of the Rules is that the authorities are bound to take into account the service rendered by the employee before passing any order under the said provision – Petitioner is held to be entitled to the pensionary benefits.

(Para 13,14)

A. Termination of Probationer employee – Regular Enquiry – Requirement of – Interpretation of -- It is well-established position that the material which amounts to stigma need not be contained in the order of termination of the probationer, but might be contained in “any document referred to in the termination order” -- Such reference may inevitably affect the future prospects of the incumbent and if so, the order must be construed as ex-facie stigmatic order of termination.

(Para 8)

B. Stigmatic Termination of probationer -- Regular enquiry –Requirement of – Appellant has been subjected to a formal inquiry before the Committee constituted under statutory regulations to inquire into the allegations bordering on moral turpitude or misconduct committed by the appellant and that inquiry culminated in a finding of guilt against the appellant with recommendation of the Executive Council to proceed against the appellant as per the service rules – Termination order is illegal being ex-facie stigmatic as it has been issued without subjecting the appellant to a regular inquiry as per the service rules.

(Para 7-12)

Service matter -- Reservation for Scheduled Castes (Majhabi Sikh and Balmiki) – Born in Rajasthan – Roots belongs to Punjab – Benefit of reservation -- Petitioner was born in Rajasthan due to Government job of father -- Roots of the petitioner are traceable to the State of Punjab as father of the petitioner belongs to Village in District Amritsar and they own land there --  Petitioner belongs to the SC (Majhabi Sikh and Balmiki) category, stands established from the report itself as also the certificates, which have been issued by the State of Rajasthan and Punjab -- Petitioner, therefore, cannot be said to be originally belonging to Rajasthan – Held, it cannot be said that she is not entitled to the benefit of the said category -- Non-consideration of the claim of the petitioner in the SC (Majhabi Sikh and Balmiki) Category, therefore, is not acceptable – Direction issued to consider her for appointment on the post of Lecturer in Political Science in the reserved category of Scheduled Castes (Majhabi Sikh and Balmiki) at an early date and declare her result within a period of two weeks.

(Para 7-11)

Constitution of India, Article 14,15,16,21 – Scheme for compassionate appointment – Dependency is criteria -- Married daughter – Right of -- Equality cannot be achieved unless there are equal opportunities for all – Non-inclusion of a “married daughter” in the definition of 'dependent family member', would be violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution – Daughter is held, eligible, ordered to give appointment on consideration of her claim.

(Para 11-16)

Policy regarding regularization of adhoc/contractual and daily wages employees dated 01.10.2003 (Haryana) – Acquittal in criminal case – Regularisation of adhoc Art and Craft Teacher – Right of -- For all intents and purposes, acquittal cannot be taken against the person for appointment -- If an employee is acquitted in the criminal trial, it cannot be used against him to deny him benefit of regularization -- Direction given to the respondents to regularize services of the petitioner as per policy dated 01.10.2003 and release all consequential benefits of the retirement.

(Para 8-10)

Punjab Civil Services Rules, Rule 4.23, Volume II – Pension -- Interruption of period from 02.02.1988 to 02.08.1994 -- Held, Rule 4.23 does not permit condonation of interruption of more than one year's duration -- When Statute does not permit condonation of interruption, decision of respondent refusing to grant benefit of condonation by adding earlier period cannot be faulted -- Appellant’s period after fresh appointment from 03.08.1994 being less than qualifying service of 10 years, he was not entitled for pension.

(Para 15)

Defence Service Regulations Pension Regulations for the Air Force, 1961, Regulations 37(a) and (b) – Circular dated 31.1.2001, Para 7.2, 8.2 – Disability pension from Air Force -- Disability less than 20% -- Rounding off – Only issue is whether the Appellant not having 20% disability is at all entitled to disability pension – Held, question of rounding off would not apply if the disability is less than 20% -- Appellant is not entitled to disability pension.

(Para 1,4, 9)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Service Matter – Junior getting higher salary -- Senior’s right to step-up -- Once, an employee who though is senior but getting lesser pay than his junior, his pay is to be stepped up equivalent to his junior and the stepped up pay of such senior employee cannot depend upon the pay of the junior thereafter especially when the junior has been imposed punishment -- Stepping up of the pay of the petitioner once granted, cannot be brought down upon the punishment imposed upon a junior employee -- Petitioner will also be entitled for the refixation of his salary and consequent retiral benefits.

(Para 19, 20)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Employee about to retire -- Salary reduced on pay re-fixation – Right to recover -- Pay was re-fixed two months prior to his retirement and the recovery was done from the last two salaries for which the petitioner got while in service – Recovery could not have been ordered from the petitioner as he was about to retire within a period of two months. Rafiq Masih’s case, (2014) 8 SCC 883, relied.

(Para 23)

Use of ‘Unfair means’ in examination – Recruitment process – Debarring for 10 years – Discovery of relevant material, would suffice and it is not as if only on actual use being made of the material -- It would otherwise amount to misplaced sympathy -- Debarment is of four categories: (a) Life debarment, (b) bar of 10 years (c) bar of 5 years and (d) debarment for that examination – Appellants directed to re-examine the quantum of punishment in the given facts of the case at their own discretion as to whether the punishment of debarment can be lowered from 10 years to not more than five years.

(Para 3-10)

Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Rule 12.21 – Compassionate appointment on bogus matriculation certificate – Subsequently discharged on the ground of fabrication in matriculation certificate – Held, appointment of the plaintiff/son after the death of his father on compassionate grounds was undeserving – Suit for declaration for entitlement of benefit and privileges of recruitment in Police Force in place of father dismissed.

(Para 4, 14,15)

Army Rule, 1954, Rule 13(3) – Disability pension – Delay in claiming – Right of – Rejection of claim for disability pension, communicated too in 1986 – Petition for disability pension in 1998 -- Thereafter, further application in September, 2002 was duly replied to and rejected – In January, 2010 respondent moved the Armed Forces Tribunal – Held, delay cannot deprive the respondent of the disability pension to which he is entitled -- However, grant of disability pension should be restricted to the period of three years immediately prior to the date on which the respondent moved the Armed Forces Tribunal.

(Para 1, 3,4)

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 11-A, 25-F – Daily wager – Termination of – Monetary compensation -- Respondent worked as daily wager hardly for a period of one year -- He had no right to claim regularization and to continue as daily wager -- Dispute was raised by the respondent (workman) almost after 25 years of the alleged termination before the Labour Court – Held, it would be just, proper and reasonable to award lump sum monetary compensation to the respondent in full and final satisfaction of his claim of re-instatement and other consequential benefits by taking recourse to the powers under Section 11-A of the Act and the law laid down in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited’s case, (2014) 7 SCC 177 – A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh) awarded.

(Para 12-15)

A. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 25-F – Daily wager worker -- Notice pay – Non-Compliance of – Re-instatement of – Retrenchment of -- When the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation – When he cannot claim regularization and he has no right to continue even as a daily wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay -- In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose.

(Para 24)

B. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 25-F – Unfair labour practice – Violation of Principle of last come first go – Junior regularised – Termination of daily wager worker – Reinstatement of worker – Right of -- In such circumstances, the terminated worker should not be denied reinstatement unless there are some other weighty reasons for adopting the course of grant of compensation instead of reinstatement -- In such cases, reinstatement should be the rule and only in exceptional cases for the reasons stated to be in writing, such a relief can be denied.

(Para 25)

C. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 25-F – Termination took place more than 11 years ago -- No direct evidence for working 15 years has been furnished and most of his documents are relatable to two years i.e. 2001 and 2002 -- Need of lineman in the telephone department is drastically reduced after the advancement of technology – End of justice would be met by granting compensation in lieu of reinstatement – Compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs granted.

(Para 26)

Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.2, Rule 3.17-A – Re-structured Defined Contribution Pension Scheme for new entrant in Punjab Government Service, w.e.f. 1.1.2004 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Old Pension scheme – Applicability to daily wager/ Work charge employees appointed prior to 1.1.2004 and regularised after 1.1.2004 – Held, entire daily wage service till the date of regularization is to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension – Petitioner is deemed to be in govt. service prior to 1.1.2004 -- New Re-structured Defined Contribution Pension Scheme introduced for the new entrants in the Punjab Government Service w.e.f. 01.01.2004, will not be applicable to the petitioner -- Respondents directed to treat the whole period of work charge service as qualified service for pension, the new defined Contributory Pension Scheme would be applicable to all those employees who have been working prior to 1.1.2004 but have been regularized thereafter -- Pension and arrears be calculated and paid to him expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months.

(Para 16, 17)