A.N.Verma, J. - (1.) THIS petition is directed against the order passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal dated July 1, 1980 dismissing the claim petition filed by the petitioner for the relief of pension to which, according to him, he was entitled under the Zila Par is had Employees Retirement Benefit Rules, 1972 (Zila Parishad Retirement Rules for short). The relevant facts necessary for the decision of this case lie within a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed, as an unpaid apprentice compounder in the Zila Parishad of Mathura and was sent for training as a compounder in the Thompason Hospital, Agra. After the said training he was appointed in 1946 as a compounder and was subsequently, on June, 7 1947, appointed on a substantive basis. On June 13, 1965 he resigned from the Zila Parishad and joined the Primary Health Centre, Raya. It appears that the Primary Health Centre found some difficulty in taking the petitioner on its staff as a result of which the petitioner returned to the Zila Parishad under a fresh letter of appointment issued to him dated December 11, 1965. Eventually he retired from the Zila Parishad on July 9, 1975 whereupon he submitted a claim for the grant of pension to him under the aforesaid Rules. The claim of the petitioner was, however, negatived whereupon the petitioner approached the U.P. Public services Tribunal by way of a claim petition. The Tribunal dismissed the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he had not completed the qualifying service often years in order to be entitled for pension under the aforesaid Rules.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this court. Sri Mool Behari Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the Tribunal committed a patent error of law in assuming that the qualifying service of ten years should be a continuous service of that length. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, I am clearly of the opinion that the contention is well founded and must be accepted. In order to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel it will be convenient to have a glance at the relevant statutory provisions. Rule 4 of the Zila Parishad Retirement Rules, 1972 provides that the amount of superannuation and retirement pension or gratuity should be the appropriate amount set out in the Annexure. It further provides that no additional pension should be granted. When we turn to the Annexure referred to in Rule 4(1) we find that a table has been laid down for the computation of gratuity and pension. The first column of this table refers to completed six monthly periods of qualifying service. From this table it is clear that pension becomes payable after completion of ten years of qualifying service. The term qualifying service has been defined under Rule 2(1) of these Rules to mean service which qualifies for pension in accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the Civil Service Regulations. Regulation 368 provides: Service does not qualify unless the officer holds a substantive office on a permanent establishment. It is indisputable that the Zila Parishad where the petitioner was employed was a permanent establishment. It is equally unchallengeable that the petitioner was holding a substantive office on both the occasions, i.e. from 1947 to 1965 and then again -except for a break of a few months from 1965 to 1975. From a perusal of these Rules and Regulations, it is apparent that the qualifying service prescribed for entitling an employee to pension or gratuity does not under the Zila Parishad Retirement Rules require that it should be continuous service. Unlike Regulation 418 of the aforesaid Regulations which provides that resignation from public service shall entail forfeiture of past service, there is conspicuous absence of any such rule in the Zila Parishad Retirement Rules. The Tribunal was, therefore, clearly in error in thinking that in order to earn pension the qualifying service must be continuous. The ten years and qualifying service prescribed for entitling an employee to the payment of pension was all that was required under the statute, whether it was continuous or otherwise, provided that the employee should have held a substantive office in a permanent establishment.
(3.) IT is, therefore, apparent that the petitioner was clearly entitled to pension as he has to his credit 28 years of service, except for a break of few months, in a substantive post to his credit. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal dated July 1, 1980 (Annexure 12 to the petition) is quashed. The respondent Zila Parishad is directed to pay to the petitioner pension in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made hereinabove. The petitioner shall be entitled to costs from the respondents. The petitioners' pension shall be calculated by the Zila Parishad within three months from the date on which a certified copy of this order is filed before it. The arrears of pension calculated by the Zila Parishad shall be paid to the petitioner within one month thereafter. The future pension shall be paid to the petitioner in accordance with law as and when the same becomes due.;