IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 13528 of 2001 Date of decision: 3rd December, 2008 Dr. Dharmpal Singh … Petitioner Versus Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.D. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Reply filed by the University to CM No. 22 of 2003 is taken on record. Counsel appearing for the University has stated that written statement filed to the writ petition on behalf of Punjab Agricultural University be also read as written statement filed by the successor University i.e. Guru Angad Dev Veterinary University. Present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued and letter dated 19th April, 2001 (Annexure P-9) and dated 9th August, 2001 (Annexure P-11) be quashed and respondents be directed to accept the application dated 5th March, 2001 (Annexure P-8), whereby the petitioner had sought voluntary retirement. Vide Annexure P-9, it was held by the University that the service rendered by the petitioner on the post of Assistant Animal Geneticist at a fixed salary of Rs.700/- cannot be counted towards his Civil Writ Petition No. 13528 of 2001 service to the post of Research Associate, because earlier post was a non- teaching post. Therefore, he has not completed 20 years qualifying service in the University to earn pensionary benefits and the period of extraordinary leave from 26th July, 1996 to 18th July, 1999 without pay, cannot be considered towards pensionary benefits. Vide Annexure P-11, it was again reiterated that the period of service on the post of Research Associate rendered by the petitioner cannot be counted towards 20 years qualifying service. Having noticed the prayer and grievance of the petitioner, the brief facts of the present writ petition can be recapitulated from the averments made in the writ petition and the written statement filed. Petitioner was working as Associate Professor in the Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana at the time of retirement. Petitioner at the time of joining University, applied for the post of Research Fellow in the Department of Animal Sciences, Punjab Agricultural University against two posts advertised by the University. A Selection Committee was constituted and petitioner appeared in the interview. Thereafter, since the petitioner possessed requisite qualification and was successful in the interview, on the basis of merit, he was appointed as a Research Fellow on stop-gap basis for a period of six months at a fixed fellowship of Rs.700/- in the scheme. Petitioner, in view of the appointment letter, again joined the respondent University as Research Fellow on 10th February, 1978. On 22nd May, 1978, petitioner was again appointed as Research Associate against the post of Assistant Animal Geneticist on temporary basis at a fixed salary of Rs.700/-. On 27th February, 1978, vide Annexure P-7, Punjab Agricultural University approved the rules and granted benefit of leave travel allowance and medical facilities to the whole time Research Fellows, who were working in 2 Civil Writ Petition No. 13528 of 2001 the various schemes in the University. On 17th March, 1982, petitioner was appointed by the respondent University as Assistant Animal Geneticist in the scale of Rs.700-1600. Later on, petitioner was promoted to the post of Associate Professor on 16th March, 1996 w.e.f. 18th March, 1996 in the scale of Rs.3700-5700. Case of the petitioner is that he has rendered 20 years qualifying service and on 5th March, 2001, he applied to the Vice Chancellor of the University for voluntary retirement from the University service w.e.f. 7th March, 2001. He further states that initial service rendered by him as Research Fellow is not being counted towards the pensionary benefits. In the written statement, it has been stated that petitioner remained on extraordinary leave without pay, for a period of two years 11, months and 24 days, i.e. from 26th July, 1996 to 18th July, 1999. According to Mr.S.D.Sharma, who is assisted by Mr.Surinder Sharma, appearing for the University, the period availed by the petitioner as extraordinary leave is not to be calculated and computed for the pensionary benefits. He states that as per the University rules, the period for which no pay has been drawn, cannot be counted towards pensionary benefits. Mr. Sunil Chadha assisting Mr.Rajiv Atma Ram, appearing for the petitioner states that petitioner has rendered service for a total period of 23 years and 27 days, and if the period of extraordinary leave i.e. 2 years, 11 months and 24 days is deducted, petitioner has served the University for 20 years, 1 month and 3 days, therefore, he has qualified for the pensionary benefits. Having noticed the rival contentions, dispute between the parties remains in a narrow compass. This Court has to decide whether the period of the service commencing from 25th January, 1978 to 17th March, 1982, when petitioner was working in the University on a fixed salary on temporary basis for six months extension without any break, is to be 3 Civil Writ Petition No. 13528 of 2001 considered towards pension or not. Mr.Sunil Chadha has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in ‘Rai Singh and another v. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra’ Civil Writ Petition No.2246 of 2008, decided on August 18, 2008, to contend that any service rendered on contract basis or adhoc service is to be counted towards the pensionary benefits. It has been held by the Division Bench as under: “4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab and others, 1988(2) PLR 223, wherein validity of Rule 3.17 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II was considered, which provided for temporary or officiating service followed by regularization to be counted as qualifying service but excluded period of service in work charge establishment. It was held that if temporary or officiating service was to be counted towards qualifying service, it was illogical that period of service in a work charge establishment was not counted. 6. As held in Kesar Chand (supra), pension is not a bounty and is for the service rendered. It is a social welfare measure to meet hardship in the old age. The employees can certainly be classified on rational basis for the purpose of grant or denial of pension. A cut off date can also be fixed unless the same is arbitrary or discriminatory. In absence of valid classification, discriminatory treatment is not permissible. 7. Once the employees have been regularised and are held entitled to pension by counting adhoc service, exclusion of service “on contract basis” will be discriminatory. Appointment on contract basis is a type of adhoc service. Mere fact that nominal breaks are given or lesser pay is given or increments are not given, is no ground to treat the said service differently. Beneficial provision for pension having been extended to adhoc employees, denial of the said benefit to employees working on contract basis, who also stand on same footing as employees appointed on adhoc basis cannot be held to be having any rational basis. Judgment of this Court in Kesar Chand (supra) is fully applicable. 4 Civil Writ Petition No. 13528 of 2001 8. Accordingly, we allow this writ petition and declare that the contractual employees who have rendered continuous service (ignoring nominal breaks) followed by regularization in a pensionable establishment, will be entitled to be treated at par with adhoc employees in such establishments, for counting their qualifying service for pension.” Mr.S.D. Sharma assisted by Mr.Surinder Sharma, is unable to controvert the ratio of law laid in above said judgment. Therefore, present writ petition is accepted. Service rendered by the petitioner from 25th January, 1978 to 17th March, 1982 shall be counted towards pensionary benefits, however, the period of extraordinary leave, as mentioned above, shall not be counted towards calculation and computation of pension. Respondent University shall disburse the arrears and pensionary benefits within three months from the receipt of certified copy of this order. With these observations present writ petition is allowed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE December 3, 2008 rps 5