- (1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the pensionary and retiral benefits. The petitioner joined service as a member of the Bhajan Party on 3.1.1978 and worked upto 31.7.1987. This is the admitted position as per para 3 of the written statement filed by the respondents. As per annexure R/2, the petitioner was taken in service on 12.10.1988 and remained in service uptil 31.3.1996. This period of service has been treated as contingent service and the exact period of service is 7 years 3 months and 19 days. However, respondents have held the total qualifying service as 3 years 9 months and 26 days. The reduction, as per learned counsel for the petitioner, is made in view of rule 3.17(A)(f)(i) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume II. The relevant portion of the rule is reproduced as under : "(a) xxxxx (b) xxxxx (c) xxxxx (d) xxxxx (e) xxxx (f) Employees retiring from Government service without confirmation (as temporary employees) in any post on or after 5th February, 1969, will be entitled to invalid/retiring/superannuation pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity on the same basis as admissible to permanent employees. In case of death of temporary employees in service, his family will also be entitled to similar benefits as are admissible to the families of permanent employees. This concession will, however, not apply to : (i) Persons paid from contingencies; provided that half of the period of service of such persons paid from contingencies rendered from Ist January, 1973 onwards for which authentic records of service is available will count as qualifying service subject to the following conditions : xxxxxxxxx"
(2.) So far as counting of the service in annexure R/2 concerned, the total contingent service should be 7 years 5 months 19 days instead of 7 years 3 months 19 days. However, that difference shall not make any material effect on the decision of this case.
(3.) The next question is regarding the break in service from 1.8.1987 to 11.10.1988. Learned counsel for the State has argued that one Net Ram was the leader of the Bhajan Party of which the petitioner was a member and Net Ram himself came back on 12.1.1988 but did not bring the petitioner along. Be that as it may, the petitioner was actually taken back on 12.10.1988, though according to respondent by Net Ram. The break in service is not shown to me as having occurred because of the lapse on the part of the petitioner. In view of the judgment of full bench of this court in Civil Writ Petition 2067 of 1997 titled Tek Chand and others v. State of Haryana and others, 1998 3 SCT 509 decided on 8.8.2001 , this gap has, therefore, to be condoned. It has been observed by he full bench as under : "(i) The condition that the break in service should not be more than one month at a time is reasonable. However, the benefit of regularisation can be denied only in a case where the break is attributable to the employee and not in a case where the employer has caused the break.";