IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 11029 of 2008 Date of Decision: 19.11.2009. Surjit Kaur --Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Mehar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.C. Goyal, Addl. A.G., Punjab. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner was appointed as adhoc teacher in Ropar District on 10.3.1972. Her services were regularized w.e.f. 1.10.1980. She retired on 31.3.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation. The pension papers of the petitioner were forwarded to the Accountant General, Punjab (respondent no.2.) for sanction of the pension. Respondent no.2, however, raised objections regarding grant of ACP benefit to the petitioner on completion of 8/18 years of service under ACP Scheme and also the benefit of adhoc service for purposes of pension, particularly the adhoc service rendered by the petitioner against the leave vacancy. These objections were forwarded by respondent no.2 vide letter dated 27.11.2007. The State, employer of the petitioner again processed the case of the petitioner and sent to respondent no.2 for sanction. Her case was again remitted back to the State vide letter dated 31.3.2008 raising the same objections and insisting that the service rendered against the leave vacancy is not to be counted for pension. The employer again forwarded the case to respondent no.2 for sanction vide letter dated 6.6.2008. Respondent no.5 on CWP. No. 11029 of 2008 -2- consideration of the objections raised by respondent no.2 vide letter dated 21.6.2008 communicated to the petitioner the decision to re-fix her salary and consequential recovery of Rs. 53, 424/-. The petitioner was asked to deposit the amount otherwise it would be deducted from her gratuity. It is against this order that the petitioner has filed this petition. The Accountant General and the other respondents have filed their separate replies. The Accountant General has reiterated the stand that the petitioner is not entitled to the adhoc service for the purposes of ACP. It is stated that the ACP can only be granted by taking into consideration the regular service. It is also the common stand of all the respondents that for the purposes of counting the qualifying service for pensionary benefits adhoc service rendered against the leave vacancy is not to be counted. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In so far the adhoc service rendered by the petitioner is concerned, Rule 3.17-A of the Punjab Civil Services Rules provides for counting even the service rendered as work charge, interrupted or continuous service. The said rule reads as under:- “ 3.17-A. (1) Subject to the provisions of rule 4.23 and other rules and except in the cases mentioned below, all service rendered on establishment, interrupted or continuous, shall count as qualifying service:- (i) Service rendered in work-charged establishment. (ii) Service paid from contingencies: Provided that after the 1st January, 1973 half of the service paid from contingencies will be allowed to count towards pension at the time of absorption in regular employment subject to the following conditions:- (a) Service paid from contingencies should have been in a job involving whole time employment (and not part-time CWP. No. 11029 of 2008 -3- or for a portion of the day). (b) Service paid from contingencies should have been in a type of work or job for which regular post could have been sanctioned e.g. Malis, Chowkidars, Khalasis etc. (c) The service should have been one for which the payment is made either on monthly or daily rates computed and paid on a monthly basis and which though not analogous to the regular scale of pay should bear some relation in the matter of pay to those being paid for similar jobs being performed by staff in regular establishment. (d) The service paid from contingencies should have been continuous and followed by absorption in regular employment without a break. (iii) Casual or daily rated service. (iv) Suspension adjudged as a specific penalty;” The respondents, however, in the reply while relying upon a communication from the Govt. of Punjab, Department of Finance to the Accountant General, wherein in response to a querry “ Whether adhoc service rendered by an employee against a leave vacancy countable for pensionary benefits or not?” has stated that the service rendered against leave vacancy is not countable towards pension, though, no reference is made to any rule. To the contrary, the statutory rule referred to herein above takes into its compass all cases of temporary service and thus the adhoc service rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 10.3.1972 to 1.10.1980 has to be counted as qualifying service for various purposes. The related question whether ad hoc service is to be counted for grant of ACP benefit is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana and another Vs. Deepak Sood and others, wherein following observations have been made:- “ Therefore, in the series of judgements given by this Court the view has been taken that in case of a transfer/absorption from one department to another or from public sector to State though the benefit of CWP. No. 11029 of 2008 -4- the seniority may be denied to the incumbent but not for other benefits like pay fixation and for the pensionary benefits. Therefore, when the benefit of past service rendered in the parent department was given for fixation of pay and pensionary benefits, there is no reason why the past service should be counted for grant of ACP Grade. Consequently, we are of the view that the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgement and order is correct and there is no ground to interfere in this appeal. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed but with no order as to costs.” This petition accordingly succeeds in following terms: (1) The respondents will count the ad hoc service rendered by the petitioner as qualifying service for purposes of pensionary benefits. (2) The ACP benefit shall be payable to the petitioner on completion of 8/18 years of service to be counted from the date of ad hoc appointment. The salary of the petitioner shall be re-fixed accordingly. Let all the retiral benefits of the petitioner be settled and paid in view of the above directions, if, not already paid, within a period of three months. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 19.11.2009 lucky