Hardip Singh and Another vs State of Punjab and Others

Hemant Gupta, J.—The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated June 06, 2002 (Annexure P5) whereby the representation of the petitioners for counting continuous ad hoc/temporary service followed by regular service towards qualifying service for pensionary benefits was rejected.

The petitioners were appointed as JBT Teachers on 01.12.1996 and 23.5.1966 on ad hoc basis respectively. Their services were regularised w.e.f. 25.7.1970 as per Government policy. The petitioners retired from Government service on attaining the age of superannuation on 29.2.2000 and 31.1.1996 respectively.

Prior to their appointment on regular basis, the petitioners have rendered ad hoc service from 1966 to 24.7.1970. Their ad hoc services were being renewed after notional breaks and breaks on account of summer vacations. The details of such breaks in their ad hoc services prior to their regularisation are as under:-

Name/Name of the school

Time from

Time of break to

Sh. Hardip Singh (Retd.) Head Teacher GPS(G) Mattewal, Block Tarsika (Asr.) 13.6.68

01.6.67

01.6.67Break

11.6.67

25.7.67 summer vacation

26.1.68

29.1.68 after 6 months

08,8.68

summer vacation

09.2.69

10.2.69 after 6 months

13.6.69

24.7.69 summer vacation

15.6.70

24.7.70 summer vacation

Sh. Jaswant Singh (Retd.) JBT OPS Niberwind 23.2.67 Tarsika

05.7.66

15.8.66 summer vacation

28.2.67

after 6 months

11.7.67

25.7.67 summer vacation

16.1.68

28.1.68 after 6 months

13.6.68

25.7.68 summer vacation

26.1.69

27.1.69 after 6 months

13.6.69

24.7.69 summer vacation

25.1.70

27.1.70 after 6 months

13.7.70

24.7.70 summer vacation

The petitioners have claimed that their ad hoc service are continuous and, therefore, be counted towards qualifying service for grant of pensionary benefits in terms of Rule 4.23 of the Punjab Civil Services, Volume II. Reliance was also placed on instructions dated 26.10.95 (Annexure P4), The representation of the petitioners to claim benefit of such service was rejected by the District Education Officer (Primary), Amritsar, on 6.6.2002 holding that petitioners are not entitled to pay for the vacation period after 30 years.

The State Government in its reply denied that ad hoc service can be counted towards qualifying service for grant of pensionary benefits as such interrupted service on ad hoc basis is not countable for pensionary benefits under the Rules. It was further contended that the petitioners were relieved on the last working day prior to summer vacations being ad hoc employees but were given the work after the expiry of summer vacations.

The question whether ad hoc service prior to appointment on regular basis is liable to be counted was raised before a Division Bench of this Court in the case titled Hazura Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., (Civil Writ Petition No. 19732 of 2001) decided on January 14, 2003. It has been held therein that the period of ad hoc and temporary service prior to regularisation of the service is liable to be counted for the purpose of gratuity and pension if the break in service is for a reason beyond the control of the employee.

Rule 4.23 of the Rules as amended reads as under:-

"In the absence of a specific indication to the contrary in the service record, an interruption between two spells of service rendered under the State Government shall be treated as automatically condoned, and the pre-investigation service shall be treated as qualifying service for pension purposes except where the interruption has been caused by resignation, dismissal or removal from service or due to participation in a strike, but the period of interruption itself shall under no circumstances, be reckoned as qualifying service for pension purposes."

A perusal of the aforesaid rule shows that an interruption between two spells of service rendered under the State Government is to be treated as automatically condoned except where the interruption has been caused by resignation, dismissal or removal from service or due to participation in a strike. The interruption in the case of the petitioners is neither on account of resignation, dismissal or removal from service or due to participation in a strike.

In view of the above provisions as explained by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment rendered on January 14, 2003 in Hazura Singh''s case (supra), ad hoc service rendered by the petitioners prior to their appointment on regular basis is to be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits. There was no wilful absence from duty by the petitioners prior to their appointment on regular basis. The breaks in service were unilateral act of the State Government. The claim of the petitioners is not for pay for the vacation period but to count the period spent on ad hoc basis towards pensionary benefits. This aspect has not been addressed by the District Primary Officer (Primary), Amritsar.

Consequently, impugned order dated June 06, 2002, is set aside. The State Government is directed to count the days of actual ad hoc service of the petitioners towards their qualifying service for the purposes of pensionary benefits.

Sd/- J.S. Khehar, J.