IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 3145 of 2010 Date of Decision: 18.08.2011 Mohinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. C.S.Pasricha, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. **** SURYA KANT .J.(Oral) Petitioner joined as a Mali on daily wages in the office of respondent No.3 and his services were later on regularized vide order dated 07.04.1998 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.06.2008. In this manner, the petitioner rendered total regular service of 9 years 11 months and 27 days in the respondent department. The petitioner was denied pension and other retiral dues on the ground that his regular service was less than 10 years as required under Rules 6.12 and 6.16 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume-II. As may be seen, the CWP No. 3145 of 2010 [2] 'regular service' of the petitioner fell short by three days due to which he has been denied retiral benefits. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has approached this Court. Respondents have filed their affidavit/reply by maintaining that the 'regular service' of the petitioner was shorter by three days to 10 years, therefore, he does not fulfill the minimum eligibility condition. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a photostat copy of the memo dated 17.09.2010 sent to the Accountant General (A&E) by the Department of Finance, Government of Punjab, in respect of one Vijay Kumar Tulani, Clerk, the contents whereof reads as follow:- “ Subject: Clarification regarding determination of eligibility of Govt. Employees for pension case of Shri Vijay Kumar Tulani, Clerk. Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter No. Pen- I/Clarification/10-11/16805 dated 14.90.2010 on the subject cited above and convey concurrence of the Department of Finance to treat period of 9 years 11 months and 9 days of service rendered by Shri Vijay Kumar Tulani, Clerk, as qualifying service of 10 years taking last period of 5 months & 9 days of service for complete one half year.” (emphasis supplied). The petitioner's claim is better than that of Vijay Kumar Tulani, Clerk, inasmuch as the petitioner has served the respondents on regular basis for a period of 09 years 11 months and 27 days even CWP No. 3145 of 2010 [3] if the service rendered by him on daily wages is over looked. Thus, the petitioner cannot be discriminated. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner fully eligible on the premise that his 'qualifying service' is not less than 10 years and to grant him all the retiral benefits. The needful shall be done by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner to represent his claim for the purposes of counting his adhoc/daily wages services towards 'qualifying service', if so permissible under the law/rules. (SURYA KANT) 18.08.2011 JUDGE 'ravinder'