CWP No.13759 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 05.03.2010 Sunder Lal ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.KL Dhingra,Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.RS Kundu, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): The petitioner was initially appointed as Science Master on 26.10.1974 in the Arya Senior Secondary School, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, by a duly constituted Selection Committee of the School. The said school was recognised. The post held by the petitioner was sanctioned post. The petitioner worked as such in the school aforesaid till 10.01.1983. He was relieved on 10.1.1983 in order to join the government service for which he applied through proper channel. He joined the government service on 11.1.1983 in the Government Middle School, Bani, District Kurukshetra. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Lecturer in English and he retired as such on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2008. While calculating qualifying service of the petitioner for the purposes of pension and other retiral benefits, service rendered by him in the previous school from 26.10.1974 to 10.1.1983 has not been taken into consideration. It is this action of the respondents which CWP No.13759 of 2009 2 has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. In the reply filed by the respondents it is stated that the petitioner has resigned from service where he was previously working and that the petitioner has not applied for the post with prior and proper permission of the department. It is further stated that the petitioner is not eligible and fulfill the conditions mentioned in Rule 3 (1) of the Haryana Aided Schools (Pension & Contributory Provident Funds) Rules, 1999. It is, thus, submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The controversy involved in the petition is covered by a judgment of this Court dated 06.11.2009, passed in CWP No.18544 of 2006, wherein the following observations have been made:- “The issue raised in the above said three writ petitions already stands adjudicated by this Court in a decision rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.16817 of 2007 (Vijay Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others) decided on July 22, 2009. It is also noticed that the State has taken a similar stand in response to a notice issued in the said writ petition. Relying upon the ratio laid down in the cases of Harnandan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2007 (2) RSJ, 437 and Charan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2006 (6) SLR, 624, decided by two different Division Benches of this Court and a cases titled Union of India and others Vs. Jawahar Lal Sharma, 2003 (3) RSJ, 672, the CWP No.13759 of 2009 3 Court has directed the respondents to count the entire service rendered by the petitioners in a privately managed school and in the Government School for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chander Sain Vs. State of Haryana and others, A.I.R., 1994, Supreme Court, 972. In all these cases, the Court has held that the service rendered in the aided school was required to be counted for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits. The issues raised in the writ petitions are covered by the ratio of law laid down in the above said cases. A service rendered in a private school or an aided post, which is receiving grant in aid is also made pensionable and as such, the same is required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits. All the three writ petitions are accordingly allowed in the above terms. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.” The above said observations are fully applicable to the facts of the present case and the petitioner is held entitled to the same relief. In view of the above, this petition is allowed in terms of the aforesaid judgment. Petitioner shall be entitled to the similar relief as granted in the aforementioned writ petition. Let the pensionary benefits of CWP No.13759 of 2009 4 petitioner be determined in accordance with the aforesaid judgment and released within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is made available to the competent authority. 05.03.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE