M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Tracer on ad hoc basis in the Department of Irrigation, Punjab, on 3.7.1958. He continued to work as such with notional breaks till 8.9.1961. He was regularly appointed through Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab and remained in the Irrigation Department upto 1.3.1966. On 2.3.1966 he was absorbed by the Town and Country Planning Department, Punjab. On reorganisation and formation of the State of Haryana he was allocated to the Haryana State from where he retired on 1.1.1982. The notional breaks from 3.7.1958 to 8.9.1961 to which reference has been made in the petition read as under:- Period of service Notional breaks 3.7.1958 to 30.4.1959, 1.5.1959 to 15.5.1959 16.5.1959 to 7.4.1960, 8.4.1960 to 10.5.1966 11.5.1960 to 3.2.1961, 4.3.1961 to 7.3.1961 8.3.1961 to 7.9.1961, 8.9.1961 to 16.10.1961
(2.) The afore-mentioned factual position has not been disputed in the written statement, as is evident from para 2. The only objection raised is that the petitioner had worked from 8.3.1961 to 7.9.1961 as a Clerk in the office of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies and therefore the afore- mentioned period cannot be tagged with the qualifying service for the purposes of pension. It has further been asserted that no benefit of increments have been given and each time the petitioner was given appointment only for a specific period of three months at the initial start of Rs. 60/-. It is further asserted that from the date of his regular appointment i.e., 17.10.1961, the petitioner has been granted the benefit of service towards pension.
(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and find that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab, 1988(2) PLR 223. The principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Full Bench is that the work charge service rendered by an employee followed by regularisation is entitled to be considered as a qualifying service for the purposes of pension. Even otherwise Rule 3.17A has now been incorporated in the Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume II, Part I, (as applicable to Haryana) in pursuance to the judgment of the Full Bench which envisages that all service interrupted or continuous followed by confirmation shall be treated as qualifying service and the period of breaks is to be omitted while working out aggregate service. Therefore, we are of the view that the claim made by the petitioner for reckoning the adhoc service of the petitioner as qualifying service for pension is meritorious. The view of the Full Bench is discernible from the following para : "Once the services of a work charged employee have been regularised, there appears to be hardly any logic to deprive him of the pensionary benefits as are available to other public servants under rule 3.17 of the Rules. Equal protection of laws must mean the protection of equal laws for all persons similarly situated. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness because a provision which is arbitrary involves the negation of equality. Even the temporary or officiating service under the State Government has to be reckoned for determining the qualifying service. It looks to be illogical that the period of service spent by an employee in a work charged establishment before his regularisation has not been taken into consideration for determining his qualifying service. The classification which is sought to be made among Government servants who are eligible for pension and those who started as work charged employees and their services regularised subsequently, and the others is not based on any intelligible criteria and, therefore, is not sustainable at law. After the services of a work charged employees have been regularised, he is a public servant like any other servant. To deprive him of the pension is not only unjust and inequitable but is hit by the vice of arbitrariness, and for these reasons the provisions of rule (ii) of rule 3.17 of the Rules have to be struck down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution." ;