Kuldip Singh, J. - (1.) Petitioner was working as Octroi Clerk in Municipal Council, Hoshiarpur since 14.8.1969. On 22.9.1991, he submitted an application to the Municipal Council, Hoshiarpur for premature retirement stating that the circumstances do not allow him to continue in service. Therefore, he is giving 24 hours notice to be released from service. His said request was accepted vide order Annexure P2 and was duly approved by the Administrator, Municipal Council, Hoshiarpur. When the petitioner retired from service, pension scheme to the Municipal Council employees was not in operation. After it was promulgated, the Municipal Council got deposited the share of CPF for the period the petitioner had not contributed to the CPF. The municipal authority accordingly submitted the case for release of pension to the Government. As no decision was taken by the Government, the petitioner filed CWP No.18734 of 1996 before this Court, in which, the Municipal Council disclosed that out of 22 years 1 month and 10 days service, the petitioner remained on leave without pay for 11 years 6 months and 2 days. Still his service is more than 10 years, therefore, he is eligible for pension. Therefore, case of the petitioner has been sent to the competent authority for approval. In view of the said stand, the petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.4.1997 with a direction to the State of Punjab to do the needful at the earliest preferably within a period of one month from the date of production certified coy of order of the Court. The government vide letter dated 6.6.1997 (Annexure P8) rejected the pension case of the petitioner on the ground that under Rule 8.2 of the Punjab Municipal Pension Rules, 1994, the qualifying service of the petitioner is less than 10 years. Therefore, a sum of Rs.7212/- deposited as CPF was also returned to EO Municipal Council, Hoshiarpur.
(2.) From the written statement of the respondents, it comes out that while computing the said service, in addition to the period of absence without leave, another period of 2 years 6 months and 15 days was deducted on the ground that the petitioner had not subscribed to the provident fund for the said period.
(3.) Now, the sole question arising for consideration before this Court is as to whether the period during which, the petitioner did not subscribe for the provident fund, is liable to be deducted from the qualifying service for computing the pension?;