CWP No. 3317 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 3317 of 2007 Date of Decision: January 28, 2009 Dario Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Manoj Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Senionr DAG, Haryana for respondents No. 1 and 2. Ms Monisha Lamba, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. The claim in this petition is for counting of daily wage service and army service for pensionary benefits. The petitioner joined the Indian Army on 1.8.63 and served till 27.7.73. Thereafter he was appointed as a driver in the Local Bodies Department, Government of Haryana in June, 1984 where his services were regularised on 31.3.93 . He retired from the service on 30.6.2002. His claim for pension was rejected on the ground that he did not have 10 years regular CWP No. 3317 of 2007 2 service. As far back as in 1988 a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab reported as 1988 (2) PLR 223 held that work charge service before regularisation has to be counted towards qualifying service. In the case of Mohan Singh v. State of Haryana reported as 1991 (3) SCT 147 extended this principle even to daily wage service which was followed by regular service. In a still later decision in the case of Hari Chand v. Bhakhra Beas Management Board and others reported as 2005(4) SLR 215 a Division Bench of this Court held that the entire daily wage service if followed by regular service would have to be counted as qualifying service for pension. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to cite any contrary judgment. In CWP No. 2327 of 2005, Harikesh V. State of Haryana and others decided on 19.5.2006 a Division Bench of this Court held as follows:- “ The petitioner has reproduced instructions of the Government in para 13 of the writ petition to substantiate his plea that the embargo contained in Rule 4 (1) of the Punjab National (Concession) Rules, 1965 curtailing the benefit of military service for pension and pensionary benefits has been removed. Relevant notification under the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 regarding the removal of limitation of pensionary benefits in second spell for re-employed military pensioners has not been denied in para 13 of the written statement and it has been reiterated that the pension during the civil service has not been denied only on the ground that the petitioner is getting pension on account of his military pension but it has been CWP No. 3317 of 2007 3 denied on the basis of break of more than 5 years between discharge from military service and joining of the civil service. In view of the above, there does not appear to be any controversy regarding the grant of benefits of military service rendered during emergency for the purpose of determining pensionary benefits of civil service. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx We have carefully considered the reason depicted by the respondents for denying the petitioner the benefit of his military service rendered during emergency for the purpose of pension and are unable to agree to the justification put forth by the respondents for denial of statutory right to the petitioner. The justification of the respondents is absolutely contrary to the scope,meaning and interpretation of Rule 4 (iii) (3) of the Rules.” Learned counsel for the respondents could not deny the factum of the above mentioned judgment having been passed by this Court. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed. The daily wage service of the petitioner as well as the permissible army service be also considered for grant of pension. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE January 28, 2009 sunita