Bhopinder Singh Dhillon, J. - (1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of Single Bench of this Court dated May 27, 1974. The Appellant Mohindra Singh Pannu was working as Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, in the office of the Advocate General Punjab on the date of his retirement In December, 1962 Government of Punjab accorded sanction to the grant of three years extension in the service of the Appellant) beyond the age of his superannuation, which at the relevant time Was 55 year. However, later oh the age of superannuation was retrospectively enhanced to 58 years with effect from December 1, 1962. The Appellant attained the age of 58 years on August 20, 1966. The Government of Punjab passed order on August 23/24, 1966 directing that the Petitioner shall retire on the date of his compulsory retirement and that he should be relieved of his duties on August 28, 1966 in the afternoon. The Appellant's prayer for leave preparatory to retirement was also declined. Aggrieved by the above Said order, the Appellant challenged the same by way of Civil Writ Petition No 1851 of 4966 The said petition was admitted on August 28, 1966 and the operation of the retirement order was stayed. The writ petition was ultimately heard by a Full Bench of this Court and disposed of by judgment reported as Mohindra Singh v. The State of Punjab : A.I.R. 1967 P&H 450. decided on December 9, 1966. The main contention of the Appellant, before the Full Bench that three years extension, of service given him by the Government should be counted from the date when he attained 58 years of age was not upheld However, oh two other prayers namely that, the Appellant would be entitled to 120 days leave after the date of retirement and that he was en his fees for Departmental Enquiries conducted by him against Shri P.S. Multani
(2.) THE Appellant filed the writ petition out of which the present Letters Patent Appeal arises that the undertaking given on behalf of the Respondent State was not adhered to and instead on January 20, 1967 - -vide Annexure 'F' notice was served upon, him intimating that because of the decision in Civil Writ Petition, No. 1851 of 1966, the stay order issued therein had come to an end, and, therefore, the earlier order retiring the Petitioner from service -with effect from August 28, 1966 had become elective. The Appellant was directed to relinquish the charge immediately, and was informed that he would be allowed 120 days' leave in lieu of refused leave as directed by the High Court in the said order. As regards the claim of fee the Appellant contended that an amount of Rs. 600 for 24 dates of hearing in the enquiries against Shri R.S. Multani and Shri R.I.N. Ahuja, in which, he represented the State was grossly inadequate. It was further claimed by the Appellant that the Respondent State failed to make the payment of the provident fund which had become due to him immediately after he was made to retires till December, 1970 and therefore, he was entitled to the interest on the provident fund deposited by him till the date of payment. His further grievance was that his temporary service as District Attorney should have been taken into consideration while calculating the pension awarded to him by the State Government. All these contentions having not found favour with the learned Single Judge, the Appellant has come in appeal. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that his service as Public Prosecutor with effect from May 24, 1945 to July 13, 1956 has been wrongly excluded from consideration for determining the qualifying service for pension, reliance for this has been placed on Rule 3.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume II, which is as follows : 3.17. In the case of an officer retiring on or after 5th January, 1961, if he was holding substantively a permanent post on the date of his retirement, his temporary or officiating service under the State Government, followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or another post, shall count in full as qualifying service except in respect of: (i) periods of temporary or officiating service in non -pensionable establishment; (ii) period of service in work -charged establishment; and (iii) period of service paid from contingencies. It is no doubt true that the case of Appellant is covered under the main clause of the rule, but the first exception of the rule specifically provides that period of temporary or officiating service in non -pensionable establishment is not to be taken into consideration for the calculation of pension. The finding of the learned Single Judge that the service of the Appellant as a Public Prosecutor was a temporary service in a non -pensionable establishment, in our view has been correctly arrived at. It is not disputed that the conditions of service of Public Prosecutor are governed by the Punjab Law Department Manual, 1938. Para 4.10 thereof specifically states the duration of engagement of a Public Prosecutor. The period of appointment of a Public Prosecutor has been provided to be 4 years, unless) specified to the contrary. On the completion of this period, the post will be regarded as vacant and after the expiry of this period the Public Prosecutor shall not be entitled to any claim] for re -appointment and the Government can without assigning any reason appoint any person to be a Public Prosecutor. In view of this provision after the expiry of a period of 4 years, a new appointment is to be made and it is not possible to hold that the re -appointment should be deemed as continuous and un -interrupted service under the Government in the eyes of law. Moreover, para 4.17 of the Manual specifically provides that the appointment of Public Prosecutor carries with it no right of any kind to any gratuity or pension or other privileges not expressly stated in the rules.
(3.) IT was contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant attended 24 hearings in these enquiries and he has the Legal Remembrancer to the Government and the establishment of the Legal Remembrancer is not a temporary and non -pensionable establishment. This contention is without any merit. From the Law Department Manual it is clear that there are number of establishments in the Law Department which include the officers of different descriptions for instance Advocate General and his assistant law officers, is one type of establishment, Public Prosecutors is another type of establishment, thence another establishment mention of which is made in para 1 of the Manual provided for the office of the Department and so on. It is difficult to the Department of Law under the Government is one establishment. In the case of public prosecutors, it has been specifically provided that the incumbent will not have any right of any Kind to any pension, gratuity and other privileges not expressly stated in the rules. We are, therefore, in perfect agreement with the finding of the learned Single Judge that the Appellant is not entitled to get his service as Public Prosecutor counted for the calculation of pension.;