- (1.) The grievance made by the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the service rendered by him as a driver on work-charge basis has not been counted and reckoned for the purpose of grant of pension and other pensionary benefits.
(2.) The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was employed as a Driver by the Haryana State Electricity Board (hereinafter called the 'Board') on work-charged basis w.e.f. 1.1.1969 and he was brought on regular cadre w.ei. 10.10.1972. He retired on 15.10.1982. For the grant of pension, ten years qualifying service is necessary under the relevant Rules of the Board. The petitioner was not granted pension which led the petitioner to fde the present writ petition. The reason as to why the petitioner was not entitled to the grant of pension has been mentioned in para 5 of the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent-Board. The same is reproduced below: "The contends of para 5 of the writ petition are not disputed to the extent of grant of increments above the Efficiency Bar w.e.f 1.1.1981. It is further stated that the petitioner was appointed in work-charged capacity w.e.f. 1.1.1969 and was brought on regular cadre (Civil Post under Civil Services Rules) w.e.f. 10.10.1972. Under the relevant pension rules, the service in work-charged capacity is not countable for pension i.e. this service does not qualify for pension and the service against a permanent post or in officiating capacity on regular cadre (as distinguished from work-charged), only is to be considered for counting for qualifying service under the pension Rules. Thus, the petitioner has been in regular appointment w.e.f. 10.10.1972 to 15.10.1982, which works out to 10 years and 6 days. However, during this period of regular officiating, the petitioner has been granted extraordinary leave (not countable for pension) for a period from 11.12.1976 to 9.1.1977 (30 days), 29.2.80 to 19.5.80 (81 days) and 12.7.82 to 22.7.82 (11 days) total = 122 days. Thus, the total qualifying service of the petitioner was less than 10 years and he is, therefore, not entitled for the grant of pension under the rules."
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact the period of extraordinary leave, which was duly granted, cannot be excluded for counting the qualifying period for pension. However, he submitted that this point need not detain as inasmuch as in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab, 1988 AIR(P&H) 265, the work-charged period followed by regular appointment has to be counted for the purpose of qualifying service for the grant of pension and other retiral benefits. He submitted that in view of the judgment of the Full Bench, the period from 1.1.1969 to 9.10.1972, which was spent on work- charged basis, had to be counted towards the qualifying service for pension and even if the period of extra-ordinary leave was not taken into consideration, the period from 1.1.1969 to 9.10.1972 and thereafter upto 15.10.1982 would be much more than the qualifying service of 10 years.;