Service in a State-constituted Board is qualifying service for pension if conditions are determined by the State Government. Transition with a no-objection certificate and application through proper channels satisfies the 'prior permission' requirement, and such rules should be interpreted in favor of the employee.

ORDER :

Ashish Shroti, J.

Petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the respondents to include his past service rendered with MPEB for the purpose of calculation of his retiral dues. He also challenged the communication dated 14/9/2018 (Annexure P/16), whereby, Assistant Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Bhopal has asked the Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri to act as per the objection raised by the District Pension Officer.

2. The facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Grade III in erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (in short 'Board') on 21/6/1981. An advertisement was issued by the Police (Home) Department on 7/5/1987 inviting applications for appointment on the posts of Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander/Subedar. The petitioner applied for appointment on the post vide application dated 21/5/1987. Thereafter, he made an application for no objection from the Board which was granted on 13/11/1987.

3. The petitioner was selected for appointment on the post of Sub- Inspector and was sent on pre-appointment training on 8/1/1988 and after successfully completing the training, he was appointed as Sub-Inspector vide order dated 9/12/1988. In between he submitted his resignation from her earlier post with Board which was accepted by Board with effect from 19/01/1988 vide communication, dated 02/04/1988, (Annexure R/1). In course of time, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Inspector and stood retired from service w.e.f. 30/4/2017.

4. When his previous service rendered with Board was not counted for pension, the petitioner made an application on 10/10/2017 requesting the respondent/department to count his past service rendered with MPEB towards pensionable service. The copy of the application dated 10/10/2017 has been placed on record as Annexure P/8. The Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Range, Gwalior sought certain clarifications on the petitioner's application from the Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri vide memo dated 7/2/2018. The petitioner submitted clarification vide his application dated 16/2/2018. Thereafter, vide memo dated 5/4/2018, the Assistant Inspector General of Police accorded his no objection for counting petitioner's service from 21/6/1981 to 15/1/1988 towards his qualifying service. Consequential order was then passed by Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri on 15/5/2018 thereby, directing counting of petitioner's service for the aforesaid period.

5. The Superintendent of Police then wrote to District Pension Officer, Shivpuri on 13/6/2018 asking him to issue revised PPO after taking into account the petitioner's service w.e.f. 21/6/1981. From document filed as Annexure P/14, it is gathered that the District Education Officer did not agree with the department's decision to count the petitioner's service. An objection was thus raised in this regard that under the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short "Pension Rules"), there is no provision for counting service rendered with MPEB for purpose of pension. The Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri, informed about the objection raised by District Pension Officer to Additional Inspector General of Police vide memo dated 24/8/2018. Thereafter, the impugned communication was issued on 14/9/2018, whereby, the Assistant Inspector General of Police asked the Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri to act as per the objection raised by the District Pension Officer. The petition is therefore, filed praying for aforementioned relief.

6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued that under Rule 26 of the Pension Rules, the services rendered with the Board are liable to be counted for purposes of pension if the subsequent appointment is taken up with due permission of the earlier employer. He referred to the NOC granted by Board vide Annexure P/4 in this regard. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the application submitted by the petitioner pursuant to adver