CWP No. 7934 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 7934 of 2009 Date of Decision: May 25, 2009 Man Mohan Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. J.S.Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 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 of the petitioner is that he should be granted benefits under Rule 4.2(A) of the C.S.R.Vol.II. Under this Rule a person is entitled to get benefit of that period for pension during which he has not actually served the Government. The Rule is intended to apply for posts the requirements for which are of such order that either the necessary educational qualifications or necessary experience is such that persons of comparatively higher age only can enter into Govt. service. The petitioner's case is that he, having been born in 1942 did his Matriculation in the year 1957; two years FSC in 1959; diploma in mechanical engineering in 1959- 62 and, thereafter worked for almost 10 years before being appointed to Govt. service in 1972 when he was about 30 years old. His claim is that he could not be appointed at the age of 25 due to the nature of the job and the fact that for this job no body has been appointed at the age of 25 and, therefore, he is entitled to count the period of 4 years odd towards the CWP No. 7934 of 2009 2 pensionary benefits. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of CWP No. 16939 of 2008 wherein a direction was issued to decide his representation and in pursuance thereof his case was considered and rejected by the impugned order dated 4.12.2008 holding as follows:- “It is clear that above chronology that in the normal course Sh.Man Mohan Singh could have obtained his prescribed academic qualifications by the year 1960, fulfilled the experience qualifications by the year 1967, which coincides with completion of 25 years of his age to join the Government service. Since he has taken more time in obtaining the prescribed academic qualifications and the prescribed experience, it is a case specific situation and cannot be said to be case of 'normal course'. He used to years time for doing his FSc, which is outside the line of prescribed regime. This is a case identical to that of a candidate joining his MBBS course after doing BSc rather than joining such a course after obtaining his Pre-Medical. Hence, the benefit of these two years is not admissible in this case while taking into account the 'normal course” hypothesis. Similarly he worked in the private sector for a period of almost 10 years as against the required 07 years. He cannot claim any benefit for the 03 years period utilized for the additional filed experience for getting benefit under the said rule. The fact that he was earning from his employers other than the Government CWP No. 7934 of 2009 3 for the excess period does not justify that the Government should bear the additional pensio0nary liability on this account.” I find no infirmity in the said order. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that similar benefits have been granted to other persons and that if he is permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action he would get the necessary information under the Right of Information Act so as to substantiate a claim for discrimination. At first blush I was disinclined to accede to this request since the matter had been heard on merits; however, to ensure that no perceived injustice is done to the petitioner, this request is accepted with the caveat that in any subsequent writ petition if filed, this order shall be reproduced. Dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE May 25, 2009 sunita