State of Haryana and others vs Devi Singh

Ranjan Gogoi, C.J.—This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.5.2009 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 13909 of 2008, by which the claim of the respondent-writ petitioner to pension and ACP (w.e.f. 1.3.2002) has been allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and the orders passed by the departmental authorities in this regard have been reversed. The respondent-writ petitioner served in the Indian Army as a Sepoy and was discharged from there in the year 1975. After his discharge from the Army, he registered himself in the Employment Exchange. In the year, 1990, he underwent a selection for appointment in the Transport Department and, though, he was selected and was entitled to regular appointment, he was actually appointed on daily wages basis w.e.f. 7.4.1990. The respondent-writ petitioner was granted the benefit of regular appointment w.e.f. 11.2.1996 but taking into account his military service under the provisions of Emergency (Concession) Rules 1965, his assumed date of appointment was calculated as 7.2.1992. The respondent-writ petitioner retired w.e.f. 30.11.2004. Though he was granted ACP scale w.e.f. 1.3.2002 on completion of 10 years service as per his assumed date of appointment i.e. 7.2.1992, the same was withdrawn and he was also informed that he would not be entitled to any pension as his approved service was only of 8 years and 10 months (w.e.f. 1.2.1996). Consequently, the writ petition in question was filed by the respondent-writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge hearing the writ petition took into account the provisions of Rule 3.17 (A) (g) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules as applicable to Haryana and the decision of this Court in Hoshiar Singh Kadian vs. State of Haryana and others, 2007(3) SCT 778 and certain orders and judgments referred to in the order dated 26.5.2009 and took the view that the claim of the respondent-writ petitioner deserves to be accepted. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.

Aggrieved, the State is in appeal before us.

We have heard Shri Kamal Sehgal, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the appellant. We have read and considered the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.5.2009 and the provisions of Rule 3.17 (A) (g) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules as applicable to Haryana. According to us, the provisions of Rule 3.17 (A) (g) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, as applicable to Haryana, are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, the service rendered by the respondent-writ petitioner on daily-wage basis was followed by regular appointment and there was no interruption in such service and the same was on full time basis. If that be so, on the strength of the provisions of Rule 3.17 (A) (g) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules as applicable to Haryana, the respondent-writ petitioner would be entitled to have the services rendered from 7.4.1990 counted for computation of his retiral benefits. In that event, his qualifying service would be more than the minimum stipulated for the grant of pension. On the same analogy, the grant of ACP scale w.e.f. 1.3.2002 (which was sought to be withdrawn) would be correct.

Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on a document enclosed as Annexure P-3 to the writ petition, i.e., order dated 26.9.2002, fixing the pay of the respondent-writ petitioner by taking into account the assumed date of appointment, i.e., 7.2.1992. Learned counsel for the appellant has laid a particular stress on the note appearing in the bottom of the said order, which is to the following effect:-

The officials will not be entitled to any arrear of pay from 7.2.92 to 31.1.96. The period of which benefit has been allowed will not count towards civil pension as he is already drawing pension from Military.

We do not see how the aforesaid note can have any relevance to the issue arising in the present case and in any event, how the same would override the express provisions contained in Rule 3.17 (A) (g) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules as applicable to Haryana. In fact, if we are to stretch the benefit of the present judgment in favour of the respondent-writ petitioner, he would be entitled to have his date of appointment further antedated (prior to 7.4.1990) on account of the military service rendered by him and to the benefits arising therefrom. However, we refrain from going into the said issue in view of the fact that no relief on that count has been sought for in the present appeal. For the reasons afore-stated, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 26.5.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge and dismiss this appeal, with costs which are quantified at Rs. 5,000/- .