DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. - (1.) THE present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of orders dated 10.8.2011/16.8.2011 whereby the proposal to condone the break from 1.2.2007 to 7.8.2007 has been rejected and also for direction to the respondents to condone the period of 188 days as per provisions provided under Rule 4.23 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case as mentioned in the petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on 2.2.1996 on adhoc basis and continued upto 13.3.1997. Thereafter, he was relieved from his duties on joining of the regular person to the post. Thereafter, again he was appointed on adhoc basis on 10.7.1997 and continued upto January 31, 2007. He was relieved on joining of regular incumbent. Thereafter, again the petitioner was appointed on regular basis on 3.8.2007 and joined his duties on 7.8.2007. The petitioner made a representation to the authorities concerned for taking into consideration the previous service for the purpose of fixation of his pay and matter was placed before the Board of Governors in the meeting held on 4.12.2009. It was decided in the meeting to await the decision of the Finance Department. The claim of the petitioner was rejected vide letter dated 10.8.2011 as the proposal sent by the Director was not accepted. The rejection order dated 10.8.2011 is subject matter of challenge in the present petition. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is covered by Rule 4.23 of the Rules as the interruption in service was beyond the control of the petitioner and the preceding service was not less than five years duration. It is also the requirement of the said Rules that interruption period should not be more than one year duration and cases where there are two or more interruptions, the total period of all interruptions to be condoned should not exceed one year. Learned senior counsel also submits that the petitioner had rendered more than five years of service prior to break and break in service was less than one year but still the claim has been rejected which is contrary to the provisions of Rule 4.23 of the Rules.
(3.) LEARNED senior counsel also submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of Division Bench judgment in Sardar Kartar Singh v. The State of Haryana and others 1996 (1) RSJ 620. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner had already been granted benefit of increments after considering the earlier service and was allowed to cross efficiency bar with effect from 1.7.2006. However, the period of 188 days has not been condoned.;