Extraordinary leave period is not considered qualifying service for pension or benefits under Punjab Civil Services Rules.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

PRESENT: Mr. Rohit Ahuja, DAG, Punjab.

Mr, Harinder Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

1.

In the present regular second appeal, the challenge is to the

judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below by which, the suit filed by

the respondent-plaintiff seeking the benefit of the period from 09.04.1978 to

19.02.1981 is to be treated as the qualifying service for pensionary benefits

including the increments and promotions, has been allowed.

2.

Certain facts needs to be mentioned for correct appreciation of

the issue in hand.

3.

The respondent-plaintiff joined as a JBT teacher in the year

1962. She was confirmed on the said post in the year 1965. In 1976, the

respondent-plaintiff applied for a long leave for a period of two years

started from 1976 to 1978, which was sanctioned. Rather than joining back

upon expiry of leave, the respondent-plaintiff applied for further leave of

one year i.e. from 09.04.1978 to 09.04.1979.

RIYA

2024.01.29 11:15

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

RSA-2741-1997 (O&M)

-2-

2024:PHHC:009369

4.

It may be noticed that nothing has come on record that the said

leave from 09.04.1978 to 09.04.1979 was allowed by the appellant-

defendant. As per the pleadings, on 10.07.1980, the respondent-plaintiff

reported for duty whereas, she was not allowed to join and ultimately in

compliance of the order dated 23.12.1980 passed by learned Senior Sub-

Judge, Ludhiana, the respondent-plaintiff was allowed to join back the

service on 19.02.1981, however, the benefit of service period starting from

09.04.1978 till 19.02.1981 was not given for any purpose such as increments

and the period in question was not treated as a period spent on duty. The

said period was treated as an extra ordinary leave period.

Thereafter, the respondent-plaintiff filed a civil suit for claiming

the benefit that the said period starting from 09.04.1978 to 19.02.1981 be

treated as a period spent on duties for all intents and purposes including the

increments and to treat the said period as qualifying service, which civil suit

came to be allowed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated

27.04.1994.

5.

Feeling aggrieved against the said decision of the trial Court,

appellant-State filed an appeal which appeal also came to be dismissed vide

judgment and decree dated 31.01.1997 passed by the Lower Appellate

Court. The both judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below have

been impugned in the present regular second appeal.

6.

While issuing notice of motion, the judgment and decree of the

Courts below were stayed.

7.

Learned counsel for the appellant-State argues that once it has

already come on record that the period in question was treated as an extra

ordinary leave period, no benefit of increment can be granted and the said

period cannot be treated as a duty period as well as qualifying service

RIYA

2024.01.29 11:15

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

RSA-2741-1997 (O&M)

-3-

2024:PHHC:009369

keeping in view the Rule 4.7 of The Punjab Civil Services Rules (Rules

relating to Pensions, Provident Funds and General Insurance Scheme),

governing the grant of extra ordinary leave.

8.

Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has not been able

to rebut the fact that as per the evidence which has come on record, the

period in question has been treated as an extra ordinary leave period.

9.

I have heard learned counsel for the partie