MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that respondents be directed to grant him pension from the date of his initial appointment w.e.f. 1.7.1966 till he retired on 8.2.2000 instead of 6.7.1972 to 8.2.2000. Shri M.F. Baig, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that although initially the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 21.1.1966 (Annexure -1) and, therefore, on 12.5.1966 but since there was a break in two, he is not pressing for that period for qualifying service. He however was appointed on 1.1.1966 on ad hoc temporary basis for a period of three months and thereafter his appointment was examined from time to time vide orders dated 7.3.1967 (Annexure -4), 24.9.1968 (Annexure -5) and 13.9.1971 (Annexure -6) and each time with the stipulation that his services would be for the period of three months or untill duly selected candidates are made available. Factually, petitioner was appointed by the order of the Tribunal w.e.f. 6.7.1972 and thereafter continued in the services of the respondents till he retired. The respondents therefore ought to have treated his entire period of service as part of the qualifying service of pension.
(3.) SHRI Hemant Gupta, learned Additional Government Counsel has opposed the writ petition and has argued that appointment of the petitioner was made only on ad -hoc temporary basis and that it was for the time specified. Learned Government Counsel submitted that an ad -hoc temporary post cannot be counted as part of the qualifying service. The writ petition therefore be dismissed.;