RAJ KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(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. 60.00. 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 Vs. 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 :