Civil Writ Petition No. 23497 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 23497 of 2010 Date of decision: 21.09.2011 Nand Kishore ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner was appointed as Driver in Haryana Roadways on 27.09.1981. The petitioner had earlier served in the Indian Army from 29.11.1960 to 12.10.1978. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 04.03.1991 due to an accident. The petitioner challenged the said termination by seeking reference before the labour Court. The labour Court vide its award dated 06.06.1996 set aside the termination of the petitioner. This order was passed on the basis of compromise. The petitioner gave up the claim for backwages but, however, the respondents agreed to reinstate the petitioner by giving continuity of service. The relevant portion of the award is reproduced below:- “ In view of the statements of the parties recorded on the file, the management agreed to take the petitioner on duty within a period of 2 weeks, giving him benefit Civil Writ Petition No. 23497 of 2010 2 continuity of service. The petitioner has given up his claim of back wages. Thus, no dispute survives for adjudication. The reference is answered accordingly. Costs made easy.” The petitioner was taken back in service w.e.f. 21.06.1996. The petitioner, however, is being denied the benefit of the past service from 1991 to 1996. The respondents had fixed the salary of the petitioner at ` 4100/- as initial pay. Ultimately, the petitioner retired on 31.01.2001 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner was paid the retiral benefits without counting his service from 1991 to 1996. The pension of the petitioner has been fixed at ` 1275/- per month showing total qualifying service as 12 years, 11 months and 12 days only. Aggrieved against this action, the petitioner filed CWP No. 8840 of 2002, which was disposed of with the direction to the respondents to decide the legal notice served by the petitioner. Pursuant to this order, the respondents passed the order on 19.08.2002 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner then challenged this order through Civil Writ Petition No. 2550 of 2003, which was again disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise a specific plea that the service rendered by him from 1989 to 1991 be counted towards qualifying service rendered by him. The petitioner then filed detailed representation with the request to count his service from 1981 to 1991 and from 1991 to 1996 for notional fixation of pay and, accordingly, for release of pensionary benefits by allowing continuity of service rendered by the petitioner for the aforesaid period. This representation was again Civil Writ Petition No. 23497 of 2010 3 rejected on 09.03.2004. The petitioner impugned this order by filing a contempt petition, which was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, the petitioner again represented for grant of service benefits and the pensionary benefits on the basis of total service from the date of joining to the date of retirement. This representation was again rejected on 13.11.2007. The petitioner claims that he is suffering huge loss and has now filed this writ petition to pray for counting the service for the purpose of pensionary benefits on the ground that he was allowed continuity of service in the award passed by the labour Court. The respondent-State has filed reply. As per the reply, the petitioner is not entitled to count this service for any benefit like pensionary benefits or for ACP as this period of service was not found satisfactory. It is stated that the petitioner had remained out of service from 04.03.1991 to 12.06.1996. Reference is made to the labour Court award passed in this case and to the fact that the pay of the petitioner was fixed at ` 4100 on 21.06.1996. It is, accordingly, stated that the period from 04.03.1991 to 12.06.1996 has been treated as non-qualifying service as the petitioner was not allowed pay and wages for this period. The approach adopted by the respondents does not appear justified. Once the petitioner was allowed continuity of service by the labour Court then the action of the respondents in not taking this service into consideration for grant of service benefits appears unreasonable. The petitioner had only given up the claim for backwages. This order was passed on the basis of compromise. If Civil Writ Petition No. 23497 of 2010 4 the service is not to be counted for the purpose of pension or such like benefits then grant of continuity of service would be rendered meaningless and ineffective. Once the respondents have conceded before the labour Court to grant continuity of service, they cannot decline to count this service for the purpose of counting the pensionable service or such other benefits. The only effect of the order would be that the petitioner would not get the wages for the period from 1991 to 1996. The respondents had agreed to grant continuity of this service and he has an order in his favour. Accordingly, the action of the respondents in declining this prayer of the petitioner cannot be sustained. The impugned order is set aside. Direction is issued to the respondents to reconsider the claim in the light of observation made above and grant the necessary consequential relief to the petitioner accordingly. The writ petition, accordingly, is disposed of. September 21, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE