LPA No.133 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.133 of 2011 Decided on : 25.01.2010 Punjabi University, Patiala ... Appellant versus Joginder Pal Vaid & others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN Present : Mr. Sanjay Majithia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.M.Singh, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers 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? M.M.Kumar, J. The instant appeal at the instance of Punjabi University, Patiala filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 03.08.2010 (Annexure A-1) rendered by learned Single Bench of this Court granting benefit of service rendered by the writ petitioner – respondent in the Horticulture Department from 10.12.1955 to 04.09.1965. The aforesaid period, as per direction of the learned Single Judge has to be included in calculating the qualifying service for pension by the University. The basis of granting the aforesaid benefit by the learned Single Judge is the decision dated 30.04.1993 passed by LPA No.133 of 2011 -2- the Syndicate, Punjabi University, Patiala (Annexure P-1). According to the Statute 9 (iii) of the appellant University, two conditions are required to be fulfilled before a period of service rendered in the government department/college in Punjab could be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of granting retiral benefits. The first condition is that such service should be at least for a period of three years and secondly, no benefit of such service for the purpose of pension etc. has been availed by the employee. Learned Single Judge has placed reliance upon a Certificate dated 30.12.1980 (Annexure P-2) issued by Assistant Director Horticulture Department, Patiala authenticating that the writ petitioner-respondent has rendered service in the Horticulture Department of the State of Punjab in his capacity as Supervisor from 10.12.1955 to 04.09.1965. The Certificate further qualify that the writ petitioner-respondent has not been given any benefit of gratuity, pension etc. by that Department. Mr. Sanjay Majithia, learned senior counsel has vehemently argued that in the written statement filed by the Horticulture Department the aforesaid period of service from 1955 to 1965 has not been conceded. In para 2 of the written statement, the Horticulture Department has conceded only two years from March 1963 to February 1965 and therefore, it has been urged that the writ petitioner-respondent did not fulfill the condition of 3 years service. Therefore, learned senior counsel submits that the learned Single Judge has committed a grave LPA No.133 of 2011 -3- error especially when in the replication filed by the writ petitioner- respondent the aforesaid fact has not been controverted. We have examined the submissions made by learned senior counsel, however, we regret our inability to accept the same. It would be appropriate to peruse the averments made in para 2 of the written statement filed by the Assistant Director, Horticulture Department, which reads as under: “Para 2. Para of the writ petition is admitted to the extent that only the pay bill and acquittance rolls for the period March, 1963 to February 1965 are available in this office and no other relevant record is available to reply the averments made in the writ petition.” The aforesaid written statement was filed on 20.11.1996 and the factum of rendering service from 1955 to 1965 has not been controverted. The only averment made is that the pay bill and acquittance rolls for the period of March 1963 to February 1965 were available in this office and no other relevant record is available. Therefore, the averment made by the writ petitioner-respondent in corresponding para 2 of the writ petition has not been controverted when it was asserted that he has rendered service from 1955 to 1965 and it has also not been disputed that certificate dated 30.12.1980 (Annexure P-2) was not issued correctly by the Assistant Director, Horticulture Department. Therefore, in the absence of any substantive material to the effect that the writ petitioner-respondent did not LPA No.133 of 2011 -4- render service from 1955 to 1965 it would not be possible to accept the contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellant. The appellant could have easily obtain complete information from the Department of Horticulture in order to attack the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, if it was true that the petitioner – respondent has rendered less than 3 years service so as to disentitle him to count the aforesaid period of service as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. The finding recorded by the learned Single Judge do not suffer from any illegality and infirmity warranting interference from this Court. The appeal does not deserve to be admitted and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE January 25, 2010 (T.P.S.MANN) sonia JUDGE