- (1.) It is defendants' second appeal against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the learned courts below, whereby suit of the plaintiff for declaration with consequential relief of mandatory injunction, was decreed.
(2.) Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned first appellate court in para 3 and 4 of the impugned judgment, are that plaintiff filed suit for declaration with consequential relief of mandatory injunction taking the averments that plaintiff retired from government service at the age of 58 years on 31.7.2008 as Law Officer/Legal Advisor from the office of Secretary RTA, Rewari.The plaintiff was entitled to get special addition to qualifying service of five years as admissible vide notification No. GRS-17/Const/Art 309/2004 dated 2.6.2004. It was the case of the plaintiff/respondent that he had submitted a representation dated 6.9.2002 regarding special addition to service qualifying for superannuation pension under Rule 4.2-A of the Punjab Civil Services Rules ('CSR' for short) Vol. II. On the representation dated 6.9.2002, the State Transport Controller, Haryana vide letter No. 464/AT-5/ST-I dated 14.3.2005, informed the plaintiff that the benefits will be given at the time of superannuation, as per rules. The FC and PS to Govt. Haryana Transport Department Chandigarh also issued a letter dated 25.10.2004 in which it was informed that the case may be decided as per notification dated 2.6.2004. The claim of the petitioner for special addition to five years service was not considered at the time of superannuation though Secretary RTA Rewari vide letter dated 17.6.2008 forwarded the case of pension of plaintiff after adding five years special addition to qualifying service. Plaintiff submitted a representation dated 10.1.2009, but the same was not decided. Thereafter, plaintiff filed CWP No. 3162 of 2009 in which this High Court issued directions on 2.3.2009 to decide the representation dated 10.1.2009 within two months. The FC and PS to Govt. Haryana Transport Department rejected the claim of plaintiff vide order dated 26.6.2009 which was totally illegal, null and void, non speaking, ultravires, malafide, arbitrary and liable to be set aside. It was specifically stated by the plaintiff that one Sh. SK Mittal, Retired District Attorney, had already been granted the same benefit vide order endst. No. AP(6)/ 2007/l0103 dated 12.5.2002 of Director Prosecution Haryana by granting a special addition of two years service qualifying for superannuation pension under Rule 4.2A of the CSR Vol.lI. It was prayed that a decree for declaration to the effect that order dated 26.6.2009 passed by defendant No. 1 was illegal, against law and facts and liable to be set aside, granting special addition to service qualifying for superannuation pension and gratuity under Rule 4.2A Punjab CSR Vol. II, as per notification dated 2.6.2004 along with 18% interest on delayed amount.
(3.) Notice of the suit was given to the defendants. They appeared and filed their written statement alleging therein that plaintiff had total qualifying service of 25 years 6 months and 28 days at the time of his retirement on 31.7.2008. Thus, he was not entitled for special addition to qualifying service of 5 years under rule 4.2A of CSR Vol. II and notification dated 2.6.2004. As per provision of Haryana Transport Department (Group B) Service Rules, 1992, ('Rules' for short), the qualification for the post of Law Officer (Legal Adviser) of the Transport Department was BA LLB with two years experience as practicing lawyer. The ruling substituted vide Finance Department Notification dated 2.6.2004 and alleged order passed by defendant No. 1 was legal and speaking one and were in no way malafide on the ground mentioned in the plaint. It was further averred that rule 4.2 B was related exclusively to the members of Superior Judicial Services and was not applicable to the present case. Though, it was admitted that plaintiff was informed by defendant No. 2 that the benefit admissible as per rule will be given at the time of superannuation and lastly, it was prayed that suit of the plaintiff may kindly be dismissed with costs.;