IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 28.08.2025 State of Punjab and others ... Appellants Versus Sarabjit Singh .. Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present:- Mr. Akhil Kamra, AAG, Punjab.

***

Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral)

CM-6366-LPA-2024

1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 174 days in filing the appeal.

2. Heard.

3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 174 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

CM-6367-LPA-2024 Allowed as prayed for.

CM-6368-LPA-2024 This application is for placing on record the judgment dated

03.08.2010 passed in LPA-899-2010 as Annexure A-1.

2. Heard.

3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and Annexure A-1 is taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

Main case

1. The appellants have challenged the judgment of the Single Bench dated 27.01.2025 whereby the writ petition i.e. CWP-1250-2019 preferred by the respondent seeking quashing of the order dated 15.04.2019 passed by appellant No.2-Director Health and Family Welfare (CC Branch) rejecting the application of the respondent seeking premature retirement on the ground that ad hoc service rendered by him cannot be counted towards ‘qualifying service’

for pensionary benefits, has been allowed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the respondent had initially been appointed on ad hoc basis as a Class-IV employee without following the procedure laid down in the Rules and therefore, the service which he had rendered on ad hoc basis, ought not to be counted towards ‘qualifying service’ for computation of pensionary benefits.

3. Heard.

4. The respondent is stated to have been appointed on ad hoc/temporary basis as a Class-IV employee on 29.05.1996, which was further extended from time to time subject to short interruptions. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were regularized on 25.11.2003. The respondent, after having put in 20 years of service, vide letter dated 06.02.2018, had sought premature retirement giving three months’ prior notice. However, it is only on 15.04.2019 that the impugned order was passed by appellant No.2 rejecting the respondent’s request for voluntary retirement on the ground that he does not possess 20 years’ qualifying service for the reason that his initial appointment was on ad hoc basis, which came to be regularized subsequently w.e.f. 25.11.2003 only, and that the ‘qualifying service’ is to commence from the date of regular appointment only.

5. Admittedly, the respondent had worked uninterruptedly on work charge basis from 01.02.1998 till 24.11.2003 whereon his services were regularized. The issue whether service rendered on ad hoc basis prior to regularization is to be counted as ‘qualifying service’ for pensionary benefits, is no longer res integra. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of State of Punjab and others versus Dr. Bhushan Lal Malhotra, 2010 SCC OnLine P&H 6069, while relying on the judgment of the Full Bench judgment in the case of Kesar Chand versus State of Punjab 1988(2)PLR 23, had held that the service rendered by the respondent therein on ad hoc basis is to be counted towards ‘qualifying service’ when computing the ‘20 years of qualifying service’ under Rule 3(3)(a) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature) Rules, 1975. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

“Learned Single Judge then opined that the requirement of acceptance of request for ‘voluntary retirement’ in the case of an employee who has completed 20 years' service does not clothe the appropriate authority with an absolute power to act arbitrarily or at whims and fancies. The plea that the writ petitioner had not completed 20 years ‘regular service’ was also raised before the learned Single Judge by the appellants. In that regard, it has been found that the matter is no longer res integra and covered by the Division Bench judgme