SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S.G. Majumdar and M. Jagannadha Rao, JJ.

SLP (Civil) No. 10098/97. D/d. 10.12.1998

State of Punjab - Petitioners

Versus

Nirmal Singh - Respondents

For the Petitioners :- Mr. R.S. Sodhi, Advocate.

For the Respondents :- Mr. Girish Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Davindra Verma, Advocate, Mr. Naresh Bakshi, Advocate, Mr. S.V. Deshpande, Advocate, Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Advocate.

Punjab Reorganistion Act, 1966, Section 29(4) - Punjab Civil Service Rules, Rule 2.21, 10.2(a), 8.19-C & 2.44 - Grant of pension - Held, those erstwhile employees of the State of Punjab who had on the appointed date i.e. 1.11.1996 stood statutorily transferred to the Bhakhra-Beas Management Board and who ultimately retired from the Board while serving in the Board will have to the paid pension according to the last pay drawn by them at the time of retirement from the Board - Also held, pension of the respondents as per the scheme of the Act will have to be paid by the State of Punjab and not by the Board which is merely disbursing agency.

[Paras 2 & 3]

ORDER

S.G. Majumdar, J - We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. In the light of the statutory scheme of Section 29(4) of Punjab Re- organisation Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and in the light of the Punjab Civil Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Punjab Rules') especially Rule 2.21, Rule 10.2(A), Rule 8.19-C, which is to be read with Rule 2.44 of the Punjab Rules it becomes clear that those erst while employees of the State of Punjab who had on the appointed date i.e. 1.11.1966 stood statutorily transferred to the Bhakhra Beas Management Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') and who ultimately retired from the Board while serving in the Board will be governed by the impugned orders of the High Court and will have to be paid pension according to the last pay drawn by them at the time of retirement from the Board. We make it clear that we confirm the decision of the High Court only to the aforesaid extent and as all the contesting respondents fall within this category of cases, the special leave petitions are dismissed.

3. We make it clear that the learned counsel for the petitioners have made a clear statement that on 1.11.96 all the respondents were statutorily transferred to the Board and have retired from the Board. The decision of the High Court in their favour is being confirmed on that basis. The pension of the respondents as per the scheme of the Act will have to be paid by the State of Punjab and not by the Board which is merely disbursing agency.

Order accordingly.