405 S 4 ReqularSecondAppeaiNo 3256of 2007 1 INTHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ReclularSecond Appeal No256 of 2007 Date of decisior 271 201 0 Shiv Kumar ppellant Versus t Stateof Punjaband another espondents 1Z 0 CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 0 I Present Mr 13 AggarwalAdvocate C5 for the appellant I Mt Amit Chaudhary AAG Punjab r for the State Z 4ktRt 1 RANJIT SINGH J I 08 The petitioner had served as a Patwari in the jointState m r of Punjabfrom 191954 to 16 1966 The appellantwas 7 Z transferred to Rohtak while he was servinglll the jointState of Punjab He did not obeythe order and thus did not joinat the place of his posting however the State of Punjabwas bifurcated The appellantthereafterjoinedthe service in the State of u Haryana on 11976 and retired on 301993 He case for countinghis service from 1C071954 to 161966 for grant01 pensionTheGovernment had taken up this case and forwardedthe case of grantof pensionbycountinghis service This however was declined on the groundthat there was a break in service of over 10 JJ yearsFaced with this situation the appellantmade a requestto the Governmentof Punjabfor grant of pensionfrom the periodof KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.07.30 12: 53 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 406 ReaularSecondAweal No 3256of 2007 t 2 191954 to 161966 On 1082001 the order was passedto the effect that thoughthe appeilanthad rendered the service but it was with the Government of Haryanaand the Haryana Government was Iiableto pay the benefit of service of this periodto the appellant The appellaothad then filed a suit which has been decreed However the Government filed appealagainstthe same 1 and the First AppellateCourt has reversed the findingreturned by 0 the trial Court Reliance has been placedon Section 83 of the Re 0 I Act bythe AppellateCourt which is deemingprovision C5 for allocation of the State to an employeeafter the bifurcation I Accordinglyit has been found that the appellantcould onlybe Z treated as an empioyee of the Stateof Haryana Byreferring to Rule 2al of PunjabCivil Services Rules I VoI Il it is held that the appellant would not be entitledto claim two C45 m pensions as this bars the plaintiff from earningtwo pensions It has 7 rightlybeen observed that what has stood in the way of the appellant Z IS the break of over 10 years in service and thus in terms of Rule Om 423 of the PunjabCivil SeNices Rules Vol il an between two spells of service rendered under the State of Government is to be treated as automatically condoned and then preinterruption servICe IS to be treated as service Since no order was passedfor treatingthis period betweentwo spellsas qualifying service the findingis that the entire service rendered by the appellantis to be treated in the State of HaryanaIn view of the deemingprovisionof Section 83 of the R Act which reads as under U Provisions as to continuance of officers in the same KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.07.30 12: 53 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 407 1 4 1 4 ReqularSecondAppealNo 3256of 2007 posts Every person who before the appointeddayis holdIng or the duties of any postor officer in connectionwith the affairs of the existing State of Punjabin any area which on that dayfalls within any of the successor States shall continue to hold the same postor offiee in that successor State and shall be 1 deemed on and from that day to have been duly 0 appointed to the post or office by the Govt of or other C appropriateauthority in that successor State C5 Provided th8t nothingin this section shall be I deemed to preventa competentauthonty on or after the appointedayfrom passing in relationto such person any e C order affecting his continuancein such postor oHice It I a5 C The view taken by the AppellateCourt does not suffer m from any infirmityIt may also need a notice that the appellant would Z not be justifiedin making a claim for pension on the groundthat he tl had rendered the previous service with the State of Punjabonce he concededly had abandoned this joband had not joinedthe placeof his transfer At the tIme of transfer the appellantwas serving at Ambala which feil to the State of Haryanaand he was transferredto Rohtak when the Statewas bifurcated which is also partof the State of HaryanaBy operationof Section 83 he would be deemed to be an employeeof State of Haryanaand accordingly there is no in making a claim for this pension from the State of Punjab He did not impleadthe State of Haryanain the suit and his suit has been dismissed on account of KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.07.30 12: 53 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 408 V ReqularSecondAppe81No 3256of 2007 4 norjoinderof proper partiesThere is no reason which would call for inteiference in the view taken bythe First AppellateCourt l Dismissed January27 2010 SINGH 1 S JUDGE r 0 C I 0 I Z C I 08 ae 1 r Ivtvl o lr 1 S 14 111r1 86 t 1l T KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.07.30 12: 53 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document