Eligibility for pension benefits requires continuous service without voluntary breaks; prior service in different institutions does not automatically qualify unless condoned.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

1. The petitioner was appointed by Executive Council of Banaras Hindu University as ‘Demonstrator’ in the Department of Basic Principles, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi by an order dated 19.11.1968 for a time period of 3 years, which got over on 18.11.1971.

2. Petitioner thereafter was appointed as a temporary Lecturer on 26.08.1974 in the Department of Basic Principles, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University and his service was extended upto 31.03.1980 by an order dated 06/07.08.1980. It appears that no further extension was granted to petitioner, however, he had worked till 18.07.1980 but paid salary only upto 31.03.1980.

3. Thereafter petitioner participated in a selection process conducted by another University i.e. Nagpur University (without proper channel) and he was duly selected by its selection committee for the post of Reader in Sanskrit Sanhit Siddhenta (Basic Principles) at Sri Ayurvedic Mahavidyalaya, Nagpur an affiliated College and he joined on 21.07.1980 and served till 20.09.1982.

4. Thereafter petitioner appeared before a Selection Committee of Banaras Hindu University and was selected on the post of ‘Lecturer’ at Department of Basic Principles, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, against the substantive post on 22.09.1982.

5. While working as ‘Lecturer‘ petitioner was granted financial benefit such as by giving fourteen increments, his last drawn salary was protected.

6. A dispute arose when, petitioner claim consideration for promotion on the post of Reader under ‘Merit Promotion Scheme‘ and since it was denied that he had not completed 8 years of continuous service since his appointment as ‘Lecturer’ in Banaras Hindu University was on 22.09.1982, therefore, he has filed a Writ Petition No. 3396 of 1985.

7. A Single Bench of this Court considered the sole issue for determination in said writ petition that whether the petitioner has completed 8 years of continuous service in the cadre as required under the scheme and in this regard Clause (a) of Para 2 of “Merit Promotion Scheme” was considered and for reference said part of the scheme is mentioned hereinafter.

“2(a). Teacher in the University departments engaged in advance teaching and research and whose contribution and achievements are such as to merit recognition must be considered for merit promotion in the first instance after completing eight years of continuous service in their respective cadre of which atleast four years should be in the institution where he/she is being considered for such assessment and merit promotion.”

8. A Co-ordinate Bench allowed Writ Petition No. 3396 of 1985 by a judgment dated 22.12.1987 and directed that petitioner be considered for promotion under “Merit Promotion Scheme” on the post of Reader. Relevant part of the judgement is reproduced hereinafter:-

“9. The petitioner who had worked in the University from 26-8-1974 till 31-3-1980 and has again joined on the same post on 22-9-1982 cannot be legally deprived of his chances of promotion to the post of Reader' for the only reason at he was fortunate to have worked on the post of Reader during the period from 21-7-1980 to 20-9-1982 in Shri Ayurved College. He cannot be punished for having worked on the post to which he wants to be promoted long before he could have otherwise become eligible for promotion had he not left the University it will be really unfortunate to think of the situation in which a person is deprived of his chances or the promotion to the post on which he had already worked for some time in the past for that very reason.

10. The petitioner had appeared before the Selection Committee under the interim order of this Court. However, recommendation of the Selection Committee has not so for been considered by the Executive Council for want of suitable directions by this Court. In view of our conclusion that the petitioner was eligible for being considered for p