Letters Patent Appeal No. 1196 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGHCOURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1196 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.12.2010 State of Haryana and others ..Appellants Versus Nidhan Singh ..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.K.KUMAR HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. S.S. Pattar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the appellants. Mr. R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate With Ms. Renu, Advocate for the respondent. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent preferred by the State of Haryana and others is directed against judgment dated 29.4.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the service rendered by the writ-petitioner-respondent before the date of his regularization on 30.9.2003 would be considered as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. It is appropriate to mention that the writ-petitioner-respondent was working as a driver on contractual basis against a sanctioned post since 26.2.1998 and his services were regularized on 30.9.2003. He attained then age of superannuation on 30.11.2009 but was denied the pensionary benefits on the ground that he did not have sufficient qualifying service which may entitle him to the retrial benefits. According to the learned Single Judge, the matter is covered against the State and in favour Letters Patent Appeal No. 1196 of 2010 (O&M) 2 of the writ petitioner-respondent by a judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in Civil Appeal No.1772 of 2009 decided on 10.12.2009 as also a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Hanumant Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2008 (4) RSJ 756. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that there is no room to interfere in the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge. After the amendment of Rule 3.17 (A), as applicable to the State of Haryana, the contractual service rendered by the writ petitioner-respondent has to be considered as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. The appeal is devoid of merit and does not warrant admission. Accordingly, the same is to be dismissed. Dismissed. ( M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE ( RITU BAHRI ) 24.12.2010 JUDGE VK