IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

224 CWP-6958-2019 Date of decision: 27.01.2025 SUNIL BHATIA ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****

Present : Mr. A.S. Nirmaan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Satnampreet Singh Chauhan, DAG, Punjab.

*****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer made in the present petition is to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for including the two years extension period for the purpose of reckoning of qualifying service for pension.

2. 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, wherein the services rendered by the petitioner on daily wage basis as also rendered by him during which he was granted extension was directed to be qualified for the purpose of pension, covers the present case on all fours, which the learned State counsel despite best efforts has not been 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 (iii) such service must be a full-time job. Note 4. The entire adhoc service rendered by a Government employee may be counted 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 adhoc service, and adhoc and regular service, or the interruptions are condonable under rule 4.23;

(iii) such service must be a full-time job;

(iv) recruitment to such service should have been made through the Employment Exchange or by open advertisement;

(v) the service rendered as adhoc employee must have been against a regular post or vacancy; and (vi) the conditions for eligibility, like academic qualifications, experience and age, at the time of adhoc appointment, should have been fulfilled.”

A bare perusal of the above Rule would show that the daily wage service rend