IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

259 CWP-8848-2021 (O & M)

Date of decision: 27.01.2025 Jatinder Kaur ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : Mr. Akash Vashisth, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab.

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer made in the present petition is for quashing the order dated 22.01.2021, Annexure P-23, vide which extension of service period from 60 to 62 years was declined.

2. The petitioner, a 70% physically handicapped clerk, was retired at the age of 58 years on 31.07.2012, and was granted 02 years extension upto the age of 60 years, vide order dated 31.03.2015, Annexure P-13. He in terms of the Notification dated 08.10.2012, Annexure P-10, issued by the State Government and letter dated 20.09.2013, Annexure P-11, mandating the same, was entitled for two years more extension upto the age of 62, which has been declined, vide impugned order, primarily on the ground that it was applicable to those in service. In this regard, pointed reference is made to the order, Annexure P-22, whereby one Sh. Balbir Singh Kahlon, Superintendent, who was also physically handicapped and retired on 31.01.2015 upon attaining the age of 60 years, was held eligible to get all service benefits and extension in service for two years (1+1) w.e.f. 01.02.2015 to 31.01.2017.

3. The plea that has been taken in the written statement for not granting the same relief to the petitioner as to the aforesaid person, is that the writ petition filed by him was decided after the petitioner had retired, is completely fallacious.

4. Learned counsel submits that the issue involved in the present petition has been decided by this Court in Kamaljit vs. State of Punjab and Others, CWP-6287-2018, on 25.04.2022 against which there was no LPA filed, which learned State counsel despite best efforts has been unable to controvert regards the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgment or cite any contrary law, relevant extract whereof reads thus:-

“I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. As far as the first prayer of the petitioner for taking into consideration the daily wage service rendered by the petitioner from 01.01.1990 till 23.01.2001, the said service at the hands of the petitioner is not in dispute. Once, that being so, the petitioner is entitled for counting of the said service keeping in view the provisions of the Punjab Civil Service Rules i.e.

Rule 3.17, which Rule is as under:-

3.17. If an employee was holding substantively a permanent post on the date of his retirement, his temporary or officiating service under the State Government, followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or another post, shall count in full as qualifying service except in respect of : –

(i) periods of temporary or officiating service in nonpensionable establishment; (ii) Omitted.

(iii) Omitted.

Note 1.–In case of a Central Government employee who is permanently transferred to the Punjab Government and becomes subject to these rules, under rule 1.1 (b) of these rules, the term “continuous temporary/officiating service” shall include such service rendered under Central Government.

Note 2.–In case of a purely temporary Central Government employee who is permanently transferred to Punjab Government and becomes subject to these rules, the term “continuous temporary service” includes the temporary service under the Central Government. The pensionary liability in respect of such cases shall be allocated on the length of service.

Note 3.–The entire service rendered by an employee as work- charged as also the service paid from contingencies, shall count as qualifying service: Provided that– (i) such service is followed by regular employment;

(ii) there is no interruption in the two or more spells of service, or the interruptions are condonable under rule 4.23;

and (