Chander Bhan Singh Rana vs State of Haryana and Another

Ajay Tewari, J.—The petitioner was appointed in the erstwhile Punjab Land Development and Seed Corporation Limited. On the reorganisation of the State of Punjab his services were taken over by the Haryana Agro Industries and he had been working at the Hisar Seed Farm w.e.f. 1.05.1972. The Hisar Seed Farm was taken over by the Haryana Agricultural Department and the services of the petitioner were also taken over by the Haryana Agricultural Department on ad hoc basis (since prior to that he had been working on ad hoc basis in the Haryana Agro Industries). Three months later, on 12.08.1972 the services of the petitioner were terminated. Approximately a month thereafter, on 7.9.1972 he was appointed as an Agricultural Inspector in the Department of Animal Husbandry. He continued on this post and ultimately retired in 2001. Vide circular dated 07.01.2002 the State of Haryana issued instructions whereby the persons who had worked in autonomous Corporations could count the period spent there for retiral benefits. The petitioner made representation dated 05.11.2007 (Annexure P-8). In that representation he prayed for counting the service in terms of the instructions on the ground that when he was reappointed after the period of one month his pay was protected. By order Annexure P-9 this protection was declined and his previous service having not been permitted to be counted, the petitioner is before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order refusing to condone the period of one month is completely arbitrary on the ground that had there been a total break in the relationship of employer and employee the respondents would not have protected his pay and, in any case, no reason was mentioned in the impugned order Annexure P-9.

In the written statement it is very condescendingly accepted that the pay of the petitioner has been protected (as if it was a magnanimous act of charity). The further ground taken is that the petitioner did not apply within the time prescribed by the instructions of 2002.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the act of the respondents of having terminated the services of the petitioner and then reappointing him within a period of one month was itself arbitrary and had the petitioner challenged the same at that time, he would have definitely been given relief from any Court and it was only on this realisation that the appointing authority had appeased the petitioner by protecting his pay and having once protected his pay necessary consequence would be that the respondents had recognised the services of the petitioner and, therefore, now for the respondents to refuse to condone the break would be illegal and rather opposed to the earlier action of protecting his pay. This specific issue came before a Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Mani Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, wherein their Lordships dealt with the same situation and held as follows:-

...Once the petitioner had been granted the benefit of earlier service rendered by him in the Animal Husbandry Department, towards his pay, he cannot be denied the benefit of the same towards pension and retiral benefits especially when the petitioner was an employee of the State of Haryana as both the departments were of the same Government. No rule or precedent has been produced before the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the service rendered by him in the earlier department. Under the circumstances, the period of service rendered by the petitioner in the Animal Husbandry Department has to be counted towards his pensionary benefits especially when the continuity of service was given to the petitioner towards pay and increments.

As regards the objection regarding time, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is no material to show that the instructions of 2002 were ever brought to the notice of the petitioner who was a retired employee at that time. As soon as the petitioner came to know he moved the representation.

In my opinion the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be brushed aside. It must be noticed that it is the respondents themselves who had initiated this beneficial provision of permitting the rest while employees of statutory corporations to count their service for pension. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is otherwise disentitled for the same. As regards the objection that there was a break in his service, I have no hesitation in holding that this plea does not lie in the mouth of the respondents since they had protected his pay at the time of his initial appointment and had thereby recognised and given effect to his previous service. There is no averment in the written statement regarding any public notice or any other measure taken to bring to the knowledge of persons like the petitioner the beneficial provision of the instructions of 2002. An instruction like this, by its very nature, cannot be allowed to be eroded merely by keeping in under wraps. Resultantly this petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. The respondents are directed to count the service of the petitioner rendered by him with effect from 16.10.1965 to 12.09.1972 for the purposes of pension along with all consequential benefits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Application, if any, also stands disposed of.