Civil Writ Petition No. 4869 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 4869 of 2011 Date of decision : 20.10.2011 Chaman Lal ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab and others ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: None for the petitioner. Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG, Punjab. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) The petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus to count service rendered by him from 06.03.1967 to 06.04.1976 in the Education Department of Himachal Government as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and to refix the same accordingly. According to averments made in the petition, the petitioner joined the Education Department in Himachal Government and served for the period 06.03.1967 to 06.04.1976. He was thereafter inducted in the Punjab Education Department on 07.04.1976 pursuant to regular selection carried out by Punjab Public Service Commission. The claim of the petitioner is that he is entitled to claim pension after counting service rendered by him in Education Department of Himachal Government for the purpose of determining his pension. Civil Writ Petition No. 4869 of 2011 2 Learned State counsel has, however, opposed the prayer. She has placed reliance on Rule 3.12 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume 2 to contend that term ‘Government’ as envisaged by said rule only includes Punjab Government and not Government of any other State. According to her, in view of said rule, the petitioner is not entitled to claim service rendered by him in Himachal Government to be counted for the purpose of pension and refixation thereof. Heard. Rule 3.12 of the rules as relied upon by State counsel reads thus:- “3.12. The service of a Government employee does not qualify for pension unless it conforms to the following three conditions:- First:- The service must be under Government. Second:- The employment must be substantive and permanent. Third:- The service must be paid by Government. These three conditions are fully explained in the following rules. ” A perusal of the rule aforesaid makes it clear that first condition therein is that service rendered by an employee must be under the Government. The term ‘Government’ has been defined in rule 2.24 of the rules Vol. 1 Part- 1. According to same, the term ‘Government’ used in the rules refers to ‘Punjab Government’. Admittedly, the petitioner has claimed that service rendered by him in Himachal Government be counted for the purpose of pension. In view of rules, however, it appears that he has no claim for taking into consideration service rendered by him under Himachal Government. Civil Writ Petition No. 4869 of 2011 3 None has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner to controvert the submission made by learned State counsel. It appears that petitioner is not interested in pursuing this petition. Dismissed for non-prosecution. October 20, 2011 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE