The delay in appointment due to the inaction of the respondents should not deprive an employee of the benefit of adhoc service as qualifying service for pensionary benefits under Rule 3.17-A(a) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules.

JUDGMENT :

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J.

CM-21356-CWP-2023

Present application has been filed for fixing the main writ petition at an early actual date of hearing and dispose the main petition in view of the judgment in CWP-15081-2011, titled as Shanno Devi vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 11.04.2012 (Annexure A-1), keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is 75 years of age and is still waiting for his entitled pensionary benefits.

Notice of the application to the respondent-State.

Mr. Pankaj Middha, Addl. A.G. Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondents-State and raises no objection for the grant of prayer as made in the present application.

Keeping in view the joint request of the parties, application is allowed and the main writ petition is taken up for hearing today itself.

CWP-14589-2005

1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the services which the petitioner had rendered with the respondent-department on adhoc basis starting from 07.07.1970 till 30.11.1972 has not been taken into account as qualifying service for computing the pensionary benefits of the petitioner, which action on the part of the respondents is contrary to the settled principle of law as well as rules governing the service.

2. Certain facts need to be mentioned for the correct appreciation of the issue in hand.

3. Petitioner was appointed as Junior Auditor after his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Selection process was undertaken by the respondents and ultimately the petitioner was appointed on 07.07.1970 as Junior Auditor. The petitioner continued working as such when the same post was advertised by the department to be filled up on regular basis and petitioner competed for the post in question and was selected against the regular post by the authority concerned on 13.11.1972.

4. Before the petitioner could be given appointment on regular basis keeping in view his regular selection, while he was working on adhoc basis on the same post, the respondents relieved him from service on 30.11.1972 but ultimately keeping in view the selection of the petitioner on the said post of Junior Auditor, petitioner was again appointed on 10.02.1973 on regular basis.

5. The petitioner continued working on the said post till he attained the age of superannuation and ultimately retired on 31.07.2005. After the retirement of the petitioner, when his pensionary benefits were to be calculated, the benefit of qualifying service starting from 10.02.1973 till retirement was given and the earlier services rendered by the petitioner with the respondent-department on adhoc basis from 07.07.1970 till 30.11.1972 was not taken into account as qualifying service for computing the pensionary benefits.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was entitled for the grant of benefit of adhoc service starting from 07.07.1970 till 30.11.1972 as qualifying service for computing his pensionary benefits.

7. Upon notice of motion, respondents have filed reply wherein, it has been stated that the claim of the petitioner was not covered under Rule 3.17 (A) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (as applicable to Haryana) at the time when the petitioner had retired from service, wherein it has been mentioned that only adhoc service which leads to confirmation can be treated as qualifying service, whereas, in the present case, the petitioner stood relieved on 30.11.1972 and was not in service on 01.12.1972 till 10.02.1973 and hence, as there is a gap between the two services, benefit of earlier service cannot be granted to the petitioner however, claim of the petitioner does not fall under any of the exception of Rule 4.21 of the said Rules.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable as the petitioner was freshly appointed on 10.02.1973 hence, the earlier services rendered by the petitioner on adhoc basis cannot be taken into account for any purpose much less to be treated as