IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

241 Date of decision: 27.01.2025 ANGOORI ......Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ *****

Present: - Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. P.C. Goyal, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

Challenge in the present writ petition is to the impugned office order No. 39 dated 11.12.2023 (Annexure P-4) whereby claim of the petitioner for grant of pension has been rejected.

2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed as daily wager, Beldar and that her services were terminated illegally without following the procedure prescribed in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Against the said decision, the petitioner sought a reference to the Labour Court which such reference was allowed in favour of the petitioner vide Award dated 22.04.2013 granting her benefit of reinstatement with continuity of service. The operative part of the Award passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat is extracted as under:-

“15. In view of my findings on the above-discussed issues, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, this reference is decided in favour of the work-lady to the effect that she is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and 25% back wages from the date of Demand Notice, i.e. 14.7.06 and an Award is passed accordingly.”

3. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the said Award was never challenged and was implemented by the respondents by passing an order of regularization in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.10.2003 in light of the directions issued by this Court in CWP-14849 of 2016 titled as “Savitri and others versus State of Haryana and others” directing regularization of services. The petitioner eventually superannuated on 31.12.2012 after having rendered 09 years and 03 months of regular service. He contends that the petitioner submitted her claim for grant of pension, however, as the same was not being considered, hence, the petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP-1701 of 2021. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order/judgment dated 13.10.2023 directing the respondents to take a decision on the pending representation/claim submitted by the petitioner. In compliance thereto, the impugned order has been passed by the respondents. The relevant part thereof reads thus:-

2. The benefit of pension has been given to the petitioner no. 1, Savitri Devi as her past temporary service from 01.11.1998 to 30.09.2003 was continued and there was no break, as such, this period of service was liable to be counted so as to grant her the benefit of pension. Whereas in case of petitioner no.2 Angoori, the period of temporary past service from the year 1995 to 2003, if counted comes to only 08 months and 13 days and there is long break in said service. That as per the record maintained by this office, total period of service of Angoori is 9 years 3 months and thus falls short of the requisite period to avail benefit of pension.

3. Legal Position: As per rule 32 of Chapter-VI of Amount of Pension of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016 and according to Rule 3.17 A of Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume-II Chapter-III (Haryana State), the petitioner has not completed the required number of years of service for qualifying the services for the pension as the minimum qualifying services required for pension is 10 years and hence the petitioner no. 2 Angoori is not entitled for pension.

4. According to Rule 3.17 A of Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume-II Chapter-III (Haryana State), the aforesaid period for which the Petitioner No. 2 Angoori worked, is not liable to be counted towards release of pension to her.

The relevant part of the said rule is reproduced here:-

"(a) All service interrupted or continuous followed by confirmation shall be treated as qualifying service; th