- (1.) Feeling aggrieved against the impugned orders dated 13.2.2012 (Annexure P-18) and 18.2.2013 (Annexure P-21), passed by respondents No. 1 and 2, respectively, whereby claim of the petitioner for counting his past service from 13.5.2000 to 27.2.2008 rendered with the Northern Railway-a Central Government Department, for the purpose of retiral benefits, was declined, petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari. A writ in the nature of mandamus has also been sought by the petitioner, directing the respondents to count his past service rendered with the Northern Railway for the purpose of retiral benefits. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto reply was filed on behalf of respondents.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are non-speaking and cryptic, as no reason has been assigned therein. He places reliance on the government notification dated 22.8.1988 (Annexure P-13), reiterated in a fresh communication dated 19.7.2011 (Annexure P-14), issued by the respondent-State. While placing reliance on notification dated 3.8.2007 (Annexure P-2), he would contend that as per clause 1, 22 and 23 of this notification, case of the petitioner is squarely covered and the petitioner deserves to be treated similar with other Haryana Government employees. He also places reliance on the recommendation (Annexure P-12), which was a conscious decision taken by the employer of the petitioner, recommending his case for counting his past service rendered with the Northern Railway for the purpose of retiral benefits. He concluded by submitting that in view of the notifications (Annexures, P-2, P-13 and P- 14), the impugned orders (Annexures P-18 and P-21) were totally without jurisdiction, besides being non-speaking and cryptic. In support of his contentions, he relies on the judgment of this Court in R.C.Verma v. State of Haryana, 2002 2 SLR 391. He prays for setting aside the impugned orders, by allowing the instant writ petition.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, while referring to averments taken in paras 2 and 12 of the written statement on merits, submits that since the petitioner was serving with the Society, which at the most can be treated to be an autonomous body of the State Government, was not entitled for the relief being claimed, because he was not a government employee, as such. He further submits that notifications relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner were not applicable in favour of the petitioner. He prays for dismissal of the present writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the present case, the instant writ petition deserves to be allowed. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.;