Punjab School Education Board Through Its Secretary v. Jaspal Kaur

ORDER th th    Smt. Jaspal Kaur D/o Sh. Avtar Singh, Exam 5 /8 Branch whose services were extended on contract basis in pursuance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court from time to time shall stand discharged from service w.e.f 31.12.2020 (afternoon) on attaining the age of 58 years.

2.    In  case  after  the  issuance  of  this  order  if  any facts/deficiency/legal  complication  is  come  the  notice  this office the office will have right to correct the same.

Secretary Punjab School Education Board

Date, Sahibjada Ajit Singh Nagar

26.11.2020 No. (E-26748) PSEB-65-Estt-2020/2939

9.    A perusal of the above order shows that even the extension given to respondent No. 1 was on contract basis and it was in pursuance to the order passed by this Court from time to time.  Further in the reply filed by the appellant-Board to the writ petition, it has been stated that the services of respondent  No.  1  were  never  regularized  and  throughout,  she  served  the appellant-Board as a contractual employee. The appellant-Board has relied upon Regulation 22 whereby the age of retirement is 58 years for whole time employees, whereas, in the present case, respondent No. 1 was discharged from service, since she was not the regular employee. The writ petition filed by her, was allowed by the learned Single Judge by relying upon Rule 3.27 of Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume 2. The said Rule is reproduced as under:- "Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 3.27 the date of retirement of a Government employee (other than a Group 'D' employee),  who  is  suffering  from  any  of  the  disabilities  viz., blindness  or  low  vision,  hearing  impairment,  locomotor disability  or  cerebral  palsy,  shall  be  the  date  on  which  he attains the age of 60 years instead of 58 years.

10.    Respondent No. 1 by claiming to be suffering from 60 per cent disability, relied upon the above referred to Rule. The above referred Rule would not be applicable in the case of respondent No. 1, since the appellant-Board is having its own Service Regulations. Even if Rule 3.27 of Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume 2 could have been applicable to the employees of the appellant-Board, then also respondent No. 1 could not take the benefit of the same, as the same is applicable to the regular employees. Therefore, we do not accept the findings given by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ  petition  by  relying  upon  Rule  3.27  of  Punjab  Civil  Services  Rules Volume 2.

11.    Further pursuant to last paragraph of the impugned judgment, respondent  No.  1  was  required  to  get  herself  medically  examined  for determining the disability as claimed and further that in case, respondent No. 1 is indeed suffering from the disability, she would become entitled to the claimed  benefit.  The  necessary  action  was  ordered  to  be  taken  by  the appellant-Board to afford extension of service to respondent No. 1 as afforded to similarly situated employees vide Annexure P-5.

12.    A bare perusal of Annexure P-5 shows that the same is dated

19.06.2020 and as per this order, the contractual service of the clerks thus was extended but in view of pending writ petitions before this Court. In Para No. 2  of  this  order,  it  has  been  specifically  mentioned  that  the  contract  of respondent No. 1 is extended till 31.12.2020 and on completion of 58 years of age, her services shall stand discharged w.e.f 31.12.2020.

13.    Subsequently,  vide  impugned  order  dated  26.11.2020/

04.12.2020, the order of discharge from service w.e.f 31.12.2020 was passed by the appellant-Board, which was impugned by the respondent No. 1 by filing civil writ petition bearing No. 21883-2020.

14.    The  learned  Single  Judge  has  totally  ignored  the  supra undisputed facts while allowing the writ petition. Further when the present appeal  came  up  for  hearing  on  26.03.2021,  the  learned  counsel  for  the appellant contended that the Medical Disability Board, PGI Chandigarh was requested  to  assess  the  degree  of  disability  of  respondent  No.  1,  in compliance  of  the  present  impugned  judgment,  but  the  respondent  No.  1 refused to appear before the said Board. The said conduct of respondent No. 1 does not deserve qua any relief being granted to her.

15.    In  view  of  the  discussion  made  above,  the  present  appeal  is allowed  and  impugned  judgment  dated  23.12.2020  passed  by  the  learned Single Judge is set aside.

16.    All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(SURESHWAR THAKUR)       (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE             JUDGE

December 17, 2024 Gaurav Arora

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on November 29, 2024 Pronounced on: December 17, 2024 Punjab School Education Board through its Secy. ......Appellant vs. Jaspal Kaur and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Anupam Singla Advocate, and Mr. Lalit Goyal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Rishav Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1 No. 1 Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause-X of the Letters Patent Act, is preferred by the appellant-Board against the judgment dated 23.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 21883-2020. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Board contends that the learned Single Judge by relying upon Rule 3.27 of Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume 2, allowed the writ petition of the respondent No. 1 and granted her relief of extension in service till 60 years, without appreciating the fact that respondent No. 1 was contractual employee of the appellant-Board and Punjab Civil Services Rules are not applicable to the employees of the appellant-Board. 3. He further contends that even Service Regulations are only applicable to the regular employees of the appellant-Board and thus, the Gaurav Arora Service Regulations are also not applicable in the case of respondent No. 1. Moreover, there is no clause in the Service Regulations that provides for grant of 02 years extension in service to the disabled employees. 4. He further submits that even if it is presumed that Rule 3.27 of Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume 2 is applicable, even then respondent No. 1 is not entitled to extension in service, as Fiscal Palsy is not covered under Rule 3.27. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 has rightly been allowed by the learned Single Judge and thus prays for dismissal of the appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case. ANALYSIS OF THE RECORD 7. A perusal of the record shows that respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Clerk on daily wages on 14.01.1997 on D.C. Rates. Her contract was extended from time to time till 31.12.2020. The services of respondent No. 1 were never regularized and vide order dated 26.11.2020/ 04.12.2020, she was discharged from service w.e.f 31.12.2020 on attaining the age of 58 years. She challenged the impugned order dated 26.11.2020/04.12.2020 by way of filing CWP No. 21883-2020, which was allowed on 23.12.2020. Hence the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Board, challenging the judgment dated 23.12.2020 passed by learned Single Judge. 8. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to reproduce the impugned order dated 26.11.2020/04.12.2020, whereby the respondent No. 1 was discharged from service. PUNJAB SCHOOL EDUCATION BOARD