Holding

The previous service of teachers prior to the takeover is not creditable; they are to be treated as fresh entrants in government service.

Summary

The case concerned teachers who were employed by District Boards and Zilla Parishads in Punjab and whose schools were taken over by the Government of Punjab in 1957‑58. The deed of takeover stipulated that the government was under no obligation to retain the existing staff and that any staff taken on would be treated as fresh entrants, with no credit for prior service. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had held that the teachers’ previous service should be counted for seniority and benefits. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the terms of the deed and held that the previous service was expressly excluded and therefore could not be counted for seniority, pension or other benefits. The Court relied on the earlier decision in State of Punjab v. Dev Dutt Kaushal. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the writ petition dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the service rendered by teachers prior to the government takeover of schools can be counted for seniority and other benefits under government service.

Subjects

senioritygovernment servicetakeover deedteacherspensionfresh entrantsservice continuityservice law

Judgment

"(

\
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. A
v.
HARNAM SINGH AND ORS.

JANUARY 17, 1997

[K. RAMASWAMY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.j B

~
S e1vice Law :

Seni01ity-Teachers-District Board and Zilla Parishad Schools-
1
Taken over by the Govenunent-Conditions of Takeover deed-To be treated
l as fresh entrants-High Cowt holding that the previous service rendered by
c
such teachers would be counted for purposes of seniority and other
benefits-On appeal held, as per the conditions specified in the take- over
deed, previous se1vice wipeq out-Not entitled to take into account the
previous se1vice for any of the benefits including pension.
D
~
State of Punjab v. Dev Dutt Kaushal, [1995] Supp. 4 SCC 748, relied
on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 444 of
1997.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.9.95 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 5590 of 1995.

H.S. Munjral and Manoj Swarup for the Appellants.

Kanwar Ashwani, Harnam Singh, J.S. Attri and Nandlal Kumar, for F
the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.
G
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Punjab
& Haryana Court, made on September 13, 1995 in Writ Petition No.
5590/95.
,
The admitted position is that the respondents joined the service as
~ · drawing teachers in the District Boards and Zilla Parishads in Punjab H
377
... \

378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 1 S.C.R.

A during the year 1957-58. The schools were taken over by the Government [
of Punjab from District Boards and Zilla Parishads. At the time of take j

over, two of the conditions enumerated in the deed of take over were :

"3. The Government shall not be bound to take in Government
service the members of the staff of the school and shall have full ~

B discretion in taking over such of them in Government service as
L

may be considered suitable by it. (Govt.).

4. The members of the staff who are taking in Government service ...
by the Government under the preceding clause shall be treated as
c fresh entrants in Government service and no credit whatsoever of
their previous service in the aforesaid school shall be allowed to ~

them and their seniority vice-versa. The old Government servant
shall be terminated accordingly."

The question, therefore, is : whether the view of the Court that the
D
previous service rendered by the respondent/erstwhile teachers in District
Boards and Zilla Parishads would be counted for the purpose of seniority
<
and other benefits, is correct in law? In view of the aforesaid clauses, it
would be abundantly clear that the Government has been given discretion
to take any of the existing members into the service and if so taken, they
E shall be treated as fresh entrants into the Government service vis-a-vis the
existing Government employees. It would be reasonable to conclude that
the Government have taken over the sch-0ols run by the Boards and Zilla
Parishad as Government schools with the aforesaid conditions to safeguard
the service conditions of the existing employees of the Government vis-a-vis
F the new entrants. Under those circuinstances, the Staff working in the
former Zilla Parishad or Board :taken over by the Government would be >.

treated as fresh entrants into the Government service from the date of
taking over. Therefore, the previous service rendered by them would not
be counted for seniority etc. It would also be clear that unless there was a
condition at the time of take over to treat the previous service of the
G employees 'as part of service under the Government service, it would not
be counted. In other words, it will be subject to the terms of take over.

The controversy is no longer res integra. In similar circumstances, this
Court in State of Punjab v. Dev. Dutta Kaushal, [1995] Supp. 4 SCC 748 in ~

H paragraph 8 considered the question squarely and held that :

t
STATE v. HARNAMSINGH 379
"........ the respondent was not entitled to any pension according to A
the service conditions obtaining in the private college. Had the
college not been taken over by the Government and had he retired
in the normal course, he would not have been entitled to any
pension. He was entitled only to contributory provident fund. It is
only under government service that pension is provided for. But B
such pension is available only if any employee puts in ten years of
service under the Government. Now the gift deed does not say that
for the purpose of pension, the service rendered in the college
while it was under the private management shall also be counted.
On the contrary, it says that the Government shall not be respon-
sible and shall not accept any liability for the period prior to the C
taking over· of the college and that all such liabilities shall be
cleared by the managing committee of the college --- which means
that on the date of taking over of the college, the respondent was
entitled to be paid the contributory provident fund by the then
management of the college." D
In view of the above legal position, the parties are governed by the
conditions specified in the deed of take over. As mentioned earlier, the
conditions specified are that they are to be treated as fresh entrants. In
other words, the previous service has been wiped out and, therefore, they
are not entitled to take into account the previous service for any of the E
benefits including pension.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. As a consequence, the writ peti-
tion stands dismissed. No costs.

G.N.· Appeal allowed.

-