Civil Writ Petition No. 21049 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 21049 of 2010 Date of decision:-01.08.2011 Balbir Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Kavita Arora, AAG Punjab. RITU BAHRI J. A short point for consideration in this writ petition is whether the service rendered by the petitioner as Math Mistress w.e.f. 22.5.1976 till 30.09.1980 on adhoc basis against a leave vacancy is to be counted for grant of pensionary benefits. Petitioner's service has been regularized w.e.f. 01.10.1982 and she retired from the Government service w.e.f. 30.1.2009 after attaining the age of superannuation. The Accountant General raised an objection that the service against the leave vacancy is not countable w.e.f.22.5.1976 to 30.09.1980 for grant of pensionary benefits. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court passed in CWP No.11415 of 2008 titled 'Harjit Kaur versus State of Punjab and others' decided on 21.4.2009 (Annexure P-3) whereby considering the case of S.S. Mistress this Court had extended the benefit of the period spent against leave vacancy to be counted for pension. Harjit Kaur was appointed as S.S. Mistress on 07.9.1968. Subsequently, her services were regularized w.e.f. 17.4.1980. Civil Writ Petition No. 21049 of 2010 -2- Her claim, which was opposed on the ground that her services from 07.9.1968 to 16.4.1980 was against leave vacancy and with intermediate breaks, therefore, it was not countable towards pension, was rejected. In the facts of the present case the petitioner has served from 1976 to 1980 and thereafter her services were regularized w.e.f. 1.10.1982. She has worked against leave vacancy till 30.09.1980 is without any break as she was regularized on 1.10.1982. Rule 3.17 deals with the counting of the ad hoc service as qualifying for the purposes of pensionary benefits, same is reads as under :- “3.17: If an employee was holding substantively a permanent post on the date of his retirement, his temporary or officiating service under the State Govt. followed without interruption by confirmation in the same or another post, shall count in full as qualifying service except in respect of :- (i) periods of temporary or officiating service in non-pensionable establishments. (ii) periods of service in work-charged establishment: and (iii) periods of service paid from contingencies. 3.17-A(1) Subject to the provisions of rule 4.23 and other rules except in the cases mentioned below all service rendered on establishment, interrupted or continuous, shall count as qualifying service :- (i) Service rendered in work-charged establishment. (ii) Service paid from contingencies. Provided that after the 1st January, 1973 half of the service paid from contingencies will be allowed to count towards pension at the time of absorption in regular employment subject to the following condition:- (a) Service paid from contingencies should have been in a job involving whole time employment (and not part time or for a portion of the day). (b) Service paid from contingencies should have been in a type of work or job for which regular Civil Writ Petition No. 21049 of 2010 -3- post could have been sanctioned e.g. Malis, chowkidars, khalasis etc. (c) The service should have been one for which the payment is made either on monthly or daily rates computed and paid on a monthly basis and which though not analogous to the regular scale of pay should bear some relation in the matter of pay to those being paid for similar jobs being performed by staff in regular establishment. (d) The service paid from contingencies should have been continuous and followed by absorption in regular employment without a break. (iii) Casual or daily rated service. (iv) Suspension adjudged as a specific penalty.” A conjoint reading of the above rules categorically provides that adhoc service rendered spreading over different spells is liable to be counted for the purpose of pension as qualified service. The rule does not make any distinction between adhoc service rendered against leave arrangement or against the post vacant. This issue has been concluded by a Full Bench and two Division Bench judgments of this Court in cases Kesar Chand versus State of Punjab and others 1988(5) SLR 27, Bidhi Chand versus State of Punjab 1999)1) Service Cases Today 481, and Joginder Singh versus State of Haryana 1998(1) Service Cases Today 795 . In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to take into consideration the service of petitioner w.e.f. 22.5.1976 till 30.09.1980 rendered on leave vacancy as qualified service for the purpose of pension within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. August 01, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE