IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.20707 of 2006 Date of decision:10.03.2010 Darshan Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Narinder Singh Swaitch, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manohar Lall, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents 1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. Mr. S.K.Arora, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition remains for consideration only on the issue of counting of military service for computation of pension, although other reliefs are also asked in the writ petition. The contention of the petitioner is that he had been originally issued with an order of appointment, sponsored as he was, through employment exchange by the 4th respondent on 12.03.1981. The appointment letter put him on a pay scale of Rs.400-600 plus allowances and the appointment was initially for a period of two months and if he was allowed to continue, he would Civil Writ Petition No.20707 of 2006 - 2 - be put on probation for a period of two years. It is an admitted case that he had been allowed to continue and that he continued beyond a period of probation as well. Subsequently, he had been transferred to the 3rd respondent Notified Area Committee with the service and the contention is that being a person, who had put in military service during emergency, he was entitled to the counting of the period of military service as provided by the notification issued on 20th July, 1965 and published in the gazette on 30th July, 1965. 2. The claim for reckoning the military service also for computation of pension is resisted by the 1st respondent on the ground that as per the Punjab Municipal Employees Pension and General Provident Fund Rules of 1994, the examiner shall, after verification send the pension papers to the concerned authority and while sanctioning pension, the sanctioning authority shall ensure that the contribution of the employee for the period reckoned for pension has been duly credited to the fund but the pension papers had not been transmitted with any particulars of the alleged military service . The objection therefore is one of procedure that it had not been verified whether the petitioner had military service and whether there had been a contribution for the period which was sought to be reckoned for pension. The objection on behalf of 4th respondent is that the issue of reckoning the military service for pension would arise only if the service had been a permanent service and the petitioner had been merely a temporary employee and he had been made permanent only after the repeal of the notification dated 20.07.1965. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent would Civil Writ Petition No.20707 of 2006 - 3 - rely on a judgment of this Court in Chief Controller Audit, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and another Versus Malkiat Singh and others- 2002(4) SCT 1036, that held that the benefit of military service would avail only to services which were regularized prior to the repeal of the rules on 02.02.1982, and a mere adhoc employee such as the petitioner would not be entitled to counting of military service. 3. To take up the issue relating to the entitlement of the petitioner to reckoning of military service and the nature of appointment that had been held initially with the 4th respondent, the terms of appointment itself is the guide. The petitioner has been issued with the appointment order which runs as follows:- “SUBJECT:APPOINTMENT FOR THE POST OF DRIVER. Ref: Employment Exchange, Ludhiana's letter No.86/81 N.C.O. No.986.60, dated 23.02.1981. Out of the list of the candidates, you have been selected as Driver in the pay scale of Rs.400-600/- plus other allowance admissible under the Punjab Government Rules from time to time w.e.f. 05.03.1981 (F.M.) for two months on the following conditions:- 1. Your services can be terminated at any time without notice and assigning any reason. Should you leave the service of the Deptt.? You will have to give one-month notice or remit one-month pay in the lieu of that? 2. This appointment is only for two months for the time being and after that if you will be allowed to continue, you will be on probation period for two years. 3. You will have to submit a Medical Certificate from C.M.O.,Ludhiana within one month. 4. You will have to take an oath of Allegiance to the constitution of India. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, 5th Pb. W/S & Sew. Divn. Ludhiana.” Civil Writ Petition No.20707 of 2006 - 4 - 4. Admittedly, there had been no break in service of the petitioner and, therefore, the continuation beyond a period of probation shall only mean that he was holding a regular post and he was in regular service. The contention that he had been made permanent only after the repeal of the 1965 Rules, therefore, is not correct. 5. To address the issue of the objection from the State, if the claim to the military service had not been verified, such verification shall be done and the requirement of Rule 8.4 shall also be satisfied that the contribution of the employee for the period to be reckoned for pension should be credited to the fund before the petitioner could make such a claim. The 1st respondent is directed to make such verification through the authority provided under the Rules and also set the process in motion for calculation of the amount that is required to be contributed by the employee for the period to be reckoned for pension which shall include military service as provided by 1965 Rules. The verification shall also include the fact whether the petitioner had received any military pension or any other benefit that still entitle him to the claim of pension. That enquiry however shall not reopen the issue which this Court has decided in this case. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks. 6. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 10.03.2010 sanjeev