• Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Pension and Contributory Fund) Rules, 1999 (as amended by 2001 Rules) Rule 17(3) - Once the petitioner had given an undertaking that he will deposit the amount as calculated by the Director, it was the duty of the Director to inform the petitioner regarding the amount, which was required to be deposited with interest as per aforesaid Scheme - The petitioner cannot be deprived of his right to count 4-1/2 years' service, which he had rendered in earlier college towards pensionary benefits - This service rendered by the petitioner is covered under Rule 6 of 1999 Rules as "Qualifying Service" - On the date of retirement, this Pension Scheme was not in force - After amendment in 2001, the employer's share could be refunded with interest at the rate of 12% per annum in order to count the previous service for the purpose of pension - The break was less than one year and hence, his service in the first college is liable to be counted towards qualifying services as per Rule 6(v) 1999 Rules - As per amendment in aforesaid Rules in 2001, even after retirement, if the amount of CPF is returned with interest that period can be counted towards pensionary benefit.  (183) P.L.R.
  • Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Pension and Contributory of Provident Fund) Rules, 1999, Rule 2(j), 6 - Defines qualifying service would make it apparent that the qualifying service will be taken into account with effect from the date an employee starts contribution towards Contributory Provident Fund - It is such qualifying service as defined under Rule 2(j) that is to be reckoned while reading Rule 6 of 1999 Rules - Petitioner started depositing his share of Contributory Provident Fund w.e.f. 1.1.1980 - Accordingly, he was called upon to deposit an amount - On such basis, the service rendered by the petitioner for the period 1.1.1980 to 22.6.1992 in a private College prior to the same having been taken over by the State Government has been counted towards qualifying service for grant of pensionary benefits - That the petitioner would be willing to deposit the employer share of Contributory Provident Fund for such prior period - Cannot be accepted - The scheme of 1999 Rules does not permit such course of action to be followed - The language of Rule 2(j) is unambiguous and is couched in clear and categoric terms.  (175) P.L.R.  


Register SCeJ  Free Updates*

Supreme Court e@journal

Subscribe or take a 4 week FREE trial 

Note: Please fill out the fields marked with an asterisk.