Punjab School Education Board and Another vs Satnam Singh and Others

Held: Pension is a deferred wage that must be assessed and paid on the basis of the service rendered by the employee – When an employee has rendered long and continuous service, and stands ultimately regularized, denial of pensionary benefits based on technicalities or artificialities is generally unjustified – On facts, the substance of the respondent-employees’ engagement must prevail over its form – Though the term “appointment” was used in the letters issued to them, the intent of the appellant-Board to regularize the respondent-employees was unmistakable from the language consistently used across the Government Policies, the public notice which referred to appointment “on regular basis” – Effect of the engagement also amounted to regularization – Advertisement or public notice was not open to the general public, it merely conveyed the decision of the appellant-Board to appoint those already working with the appellant-Board on regular basis against permanent vacant posts, and invited objections to the same, if any – Mere nomenclature at this belated stage cannot overcome such extensive evidence establishing that the appellantBoard indeed regularized the respondent-employees – Thus, established that the services were regularized – Single Judge and Division Bench rightly held that the services by respondentemployees rendered on contract/ad hoc/daily wage basis prior to regularization must be computed as qualifying service for the purpose of retiral and pension benefits – Breaks in service were either ‘notional’ or artificial/administrative breaks, or precipitated by Court orders, they must be ignored and the service should be treated as continuous – Appellant-Board had voluntarily adopted the policy mutatis mutandis – Suitable amendment of the regularization policy was to meet the appellant-Board’s needs and not fresh appointment per se – Also the employees similarly situated in other departments have been granted identical relief by the High Court itself and to hold the respondents ineligible now would be prima facie discriminatory – Decisions of the courts below legally sound and based on correct application of law to facts, and there is no illegality or infirmity that would warrant interference in appeal – Respondent-employees were indeed regularized and are entitled to be treated as having entered Government service prior to 01.01.2004 and thus, fall under Tier II of the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme – They have the discretion to choose either the old GPF pension scheme or the new scheme, if they opt for it. [Paras 21-23, 26, 27, 29-33]