Civil Writ Petition No.16175 of 1998 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16175 of 1998 Date of decision: May 01, 2008. Dial Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. Present: None for the petitioner. Shri N.S. Pawar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): In this civil writ petition, the petitioner – a retiree of the Govt. of Punjab, seeks a direction for counting of the service rendered by him with effect from 25.5.1961 to 12.4.1966 towards pension and other retiral benefits. [2]. The facts may be noticed briefly. [3]. On the recommendations of the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab, the petitioner was appointed as a Sanitary Supervisor in the Health Department, Govt. of Punjab on 25.5.1961. He was promoted as Surveillance Inspector vide order dated ECCD/7/12698 dated 20.7.1965 Civil Writ Petition No.16175 of 1998 -: 2 :- passed by the Director, Health Services. The petitioner, however, was retrenched from service vide order No.ECCD/M-7/663858-67 dated 8.3.1966 passed by the Director, Health Services, Punjab and was relieved with effect from 12.4.1966. [4]. The petitioner was again selected by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab for appointment to the post of Computer in the same Department, i.e., the Health Department and the petitioner joined as such on 17.8.1966. Finally, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.1992. All these entries are stated to have been duly incorporated in the service-book of the petitioner. [5]. After retirement, the petitioner was paid his retiral benefits, including pension, on the basis of the service rendered by him as Computer with effect from 17.8.1966 till he retired. In other words, the regular service rendered by him as Sanitary Supervisor/Surveillance Inspector in the same Department with effect from 25.5.1961 to 12.4.1966 was not counted towards the retiral benefits. [6]. The petitioner raised the above stated claim but the same was turned down by the respondents on 15.11.1994. He thereafter filed the present writ petition in the year 1998. [7]. The solitary question which arises for consideration is as to whether or not the service rendered by the petitioner as Sanitary Supervisor/Surveillance Inspector with effect from 25.5.1961 till 12.4.1966, when he was relieved due to retrenchment of his services, is liable to be counted towards pension and other post-retiral benefits? [8]. The retiral benefits of an employee of the State of Punjab are governed by the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, in terms whereof Civil Writ Petition No.16175 of 1998 -: 3 :- every govt. employee who entered into service on or after 10.6.1951 is entitled for 'pension' and 'other retiral benefits' subject to the conditions contained in the aforementioned rules. [9]. Rule 4.23 of CSR, Vol. II, pertains to 'Condonation of Interruptions and Deficiencies'. The aforesaid rule has material bearing on the fate of this case and the same reads as follows:- “4.23. Interruption in service (either between two spells of permanent or temporary service or between a speall of temporary service and permanent service or vice-versa) may be condoned, subject to the following conditions, namely:- (1)The interruption should have been caused by reasons beyond the control of Government employee concerned. (2) Service preceding the interruption should not be less than five years' duration. In case where there are two or more interruptions, the total service, pensionary benefits in respect of which shall be lost if the interruptions are not condoned should not be less than five years. (3) The interruption should not be of more than one year's duration. In cases where there are two or more interruptions, the total period of all interruptions to be condoned should not exceed one year.” [10]. On a plain reading of the above rule, it stands crystalized that interruption between two spells of service rendered by an employee under the State Govt., provided that such interruption is not caused by reasons beyond the control of the govt. employee or the same is not on account of resignation, dismissal or his removal from service, has to be treated automatically condoned. Similarly, such an interruption shall not only be treated automatically condoned, but would also be a 'qualifying service for Civil Writ Petition No.16175 of 1998 -: 4 :- pension', provided that the interruption is not for a period of more than one year's duration. [11]. Rule 4.23 CSR, Vol. II, thus, completely answers the petitioner's claim in his favour. Firstly, the interruption in the case of the petitioner is for a period of four months and four days only, i.e., less than one year's duration. Secondly, the interruption was caused as the petitioner was retrenched from service, i.e., for a reason beyond his control. Thirdly, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner resigned from service or he was ever dismissed/removed from service. [12]. The service rendered by the petitioner as Sanitary Supervisor/Surveillance Inspector in the respondent-Health Department, therefore, has to be counted towards the total qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. [13]. To be fair to the Learned State Counsel, it is contended that the petitioner's representation for 'condonation of the break' was rejected way back in the year 1968, therefore, the writ petition suffers with delay and laches. In my considered view, the contention is wholly misconceived. Admittedly, in the year 1968 the petitioner had represented for 'condonation' of the period from 13.4.1966 to 17.8.1966. The petitioner obviously wanted continuation of his service for the purposes of fixation of pay etc. The fact that his claim was turned down, has no bearing on his right to claim that the first spell of his regular service should also be counted towards pension and other retiral benefits. [14]. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to re-determine the pension and other retiral benefits of the petitioner after counting the service rendered by him with Civil Writ Petition No.16175 of 1998 -: 5 :- effect from 25.5.1961 till 12.4.1966 in the first spell and grant him all the consequential monetary benefits with simple interest @ 7% per annum. The needful shall be done within a period three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. [15]. No order as to costs. May 01, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge