Regular Second Appeal No. 3237 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Regular Second Appeal No. 3237 of 2011 Date of Decision: 8.8.2011 Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Limited and Another …Appellants Versus Kanhaiya Lal Yadav and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for Mr. Siddharth Batra, Advocate for the appellants. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Limited has preferred the present regular second appeal. Kanhaiya Lal Yadav, plaintiff, had filed a suit seeking declaration to the effect that he is entitled to grant of gratuity amount from the defendants, arrears of pension, leave encashment due to him along with arrears and interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date it became due till its realisation. It is an admitted fact that respondent No.1/plaintiff was initially appointed as a Supervisor in CFW Kooski, District Mohindergarh, Haryana, under the control of Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Mohindergarh and he joined as such on 24.4.1965, wherefrom he was transferred to CFW Ateli Nangal, District Mohindergarh, vide memo dated 13.7.1965 and he had joined his duties there on 2.7.1976. He worked there under the control of Block Regular Second Appeal No. 3237 of 2011 2 Development & Panchayat Officer, Ateli Nangal, District Mohindergarh, Haryana, It is also not denied that the State of Haryana took a policy decision that all the workshops under the control of Block Development & Panchayat Officers be closed down and its employees be transferred from Industries Department, Haryana, to Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Limited. Therefore, the services rendered by respondent No.1/plaintiff at workshops were also transferred to the appellant/defendant Corporation. On 30.11.2009, respondent No.1/plaintiff attained the age of superannuation, however, the services rendered by him under the Control of defendants No.1 to 6 for about 11 years 2 months and nine days were not considered by the Corporation towards grant of pension, gratuity and other consequential benefits including the retiral benefits. Both the Courts below have held respondent No.1/plaintiff to be entitled for gratuity, leave encashment and pension taking into consideration the fact that the workshops, wherein he was employed, were entirely under the control of appellant-Corporation, therefore, the period of service rendered by him in the Industries Department, Government of Haryana, is to be counted towards pensionary benefits. Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate, appearing for Mr. Siddharath Batra, Advocate, counsel for the appellant, has submitted that a grave error has been committed by both the Courts below in taking the services rendered by the plaintiff in Industries Department, Government of Haryana, to be continuous service. It is submitted by learned counsel that for all intents and purposes, the plaintiff was a fresh appointee in the appellant/Corporation. However, learned counsel has failed to show any Regular Second Appeal No. 3237 of 2011 3 document from which it may be inferred that it was a fresh appointment. It will be apposite here to reproduce the following finding returned by the trial Court:- “14. With regard to first contention of plaintiff against defendant Nos. 1 to 6, it is very clear and proved that initially plaintiff was working under defendant Nos.1 to 6 i.e. Director of Industries, Haryana and was appointed in Common Facility Workshop and said common Facility Workshop was closed down by a policy decision of Government and plaintiff was absorbed by Haryana Agro Industries i.e. defendant Nos. 7 & 8. A perusal of Ex.P1 i.e. service book shows that his pay and allowances were also protected and he joined the Haryana Agro Industries Corporation on 3.7.1976. There is no need for much discussion on this point, as, on the similar matter, and in the similar circumstances, Hon'ble High Court has already, in detail, discussed Rules 5.2 & 5.3 of Service Rules and has held similarly situated persons to be eligible for pension and gratuity which is evident from Ex.P7 and Ex.P8. Further, a perusal of Ex.P8/A also proves the claim of the plaintiff against defendants Nos. 1 to 6. In these circumstances, it is clear that the plaintiff is entitled to pension and gratuity from defendant Nos.1 to 6 for the period of 11 years 2 Regular Second Appeal No. 3237 of 2011 4 months and 9 days i.e. the duration for which he has served in Industries Department.” The trial Court, taking into consideration the fact that this Court, in case of similarly situated employees, had held that the past service rendered in the Government of Haryana is to be counted towards pension and gratuity. Thus, the Court had rightly granted the retiral benefits to the plaintiff taking into consideration the period of 11 years 2 months and nine days, the duration of which the employee served in Department of Industries towards computation of gratuity, pension and leave encashment. Much ado has been made regarding the fact that the increments of the employees were stopped by the department. Both the Courts below have held that in view of the judgment dated 22.11.1999 Ex.P11/A rendered by the Civil Court, this argument cannot be taken to disadvantage of plaintiff/respondent No.1. The concurrent findings of fact, returned by both the Courts below, suffer from no infirmity. Thus, no point of law, much less a substantial one, has been raised for consideration of this Court. Hence, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed, in limine. Civil Misc. No. 8951-C of 2011 Since the main appeal has been dismissed, therefore, no orders are required to be passed in the present application and the same is also dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 8, 2011 “DK”