Civil Writ Petition No.2530 OF 2007 (1) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No.2530 OF 2007 Date of Decision: December 10, 2008 Suraj Parkash ---Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S. GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN **** Present: Mr. Saurabh Bajaj ,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Harish Rathee, Senior Deputy Advocate General Haryana **** K. KANNAN, J. The issue for adjudication in this writ petition is the mode of reckoning the length of service for the purpose of computation of pension of an employee who after military service took up State service and placed on ad hoc basis, that was later regularised. Would the ad hoc service count? The facts giving rise to the writ petition are that the petitioner had served Indian Army w.e.f. 26.10.1962 to 10.1.1968 i.e. 5 years, 01 month and 22 days during the period when there was proclaimed Civil Writ Petition No.2530 OF 2007 (2) emergency due to aggression by China and continued beyond the period of emergency up to 7.9.1979. After the engagement from the military service he had joined as Cluster Supervisor in the Animal Husbandry Department, Haryana on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 28.2.1980. His services were regularised w.e.f. 15.9.1982 and was retired from service on 30.11.1998 on attaining the age of superannuation. When the retiral benefits had been released to him, according to the petitioner, it was then, he found that his length of service, during the time he had been taken in the State service on ad hoc basis, had not been counted for the purpose of pension. The communications to the authorities did not yield fruit and hence the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Naurang Yadav vs. State of Haryana and others CWP No. 11099 of 2000, where the Court held that the ad hoc service was also bound to be counted for the purpose of pension and the contention that counting of ad hoc and military service would result in over lapping was rejected. SLP No. 3775 of 2006 titled as State of Haryana and others vs. Ram Chander filed against the order of this Court on the same subject also was rejected as having been dismissed on 9.5.2006. Yet another judgment of this Court cited by the petitioner namely the decision in C.W.P.No. 13715 of 2004 dated 26th September, 2005 that drew the precedent value in Naurang Yadav's case, referred to above, stated that ad hoc service was bound to be added for computation of pension. The above decisions squarely cover the case that is in lis between the parties. The contentions of the State counsel that the petitioner had already been given annual grade increment and seniority benefits from the date of his regular appointment i.e. dated 15.9.1982 and that also the military service, has been taken into account appropriately by reckoning the deemed date of pension from 24.7.1976 and that the Civil Writ Petition No.2530 OF 2007 (3) petitioner was not entitled to the relief as claimed by him, thus, do not appear to be correct. Further reliance on behalf of the State on Punjab Government National Emergency Concession Rules, 1965, which contains no more than the stipulation that the period of military service should count for increments and the period between the date of discharge from the military service and date of appointment to any service or post under the Government should count for pension are not in any way breached by the construction which the petitioner seeks to place before us for reckoning of the pensionary benefits. Indeed there is no provision anywhere which enables the State to leave out of reckoning the period of ad hoc service for the computation of pension. In the above circumstances, we `agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to have pensionary benefits calculated on the basis that his service shall be counted as effective from 28.2.1980, the date when the petitioner joined as Cluster Supervisor on ad hoc basis and for all the consequential benefits that accrued therefrom. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. (MEHTAB S. GILL) (K.KANNAN) JUDGE JUDGE December 10, 2008 PARAMJIT Internet: yes/no Reportable/Non-reportable