IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.14195 of 2006 Date of Decision:- 19.02.2008 Satinder Dogra ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.J.S.Maanipur, Advocate vs. State of Punjab & others ....Respondent(s) through Mr.Mukesh Berry, Addl.AG, Punjab. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the 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? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) In this civil writ petition, the petitioner has come up with a prayer for quashing of the order dated 18.8.2006 whereby his request for grant of premature retirement has been turned down on the ground that he has not completed qualifying service of 20 years. The facts may be noticed briefly. The petitioner joined the Irrigation Department, Punjab as a Driver on work-charged basis with effect from 16.6.1984. While working as such uninterruptedly, his services were regularized with effect from 1.7.1998 vide an order dated 8.7.1998 (Annexure P-2). Due to his family circumstances, the petitioner sought premature retirement which has, however, been declined to him on the ground that he has not completed minimum qualifying service of 20 years. C.W.P.No.14195 of 2006 -2- On the other hand, the petitioner contends that the entire service period including rendered by him on work-charged basis has to be taken into account towards qualifying service of 20 years. The petitioner's request for premature retirement is undoubtedly governed by the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975(in short 'the 1975 Rules'). Rule 3(3)(a) of the 1975 Rules contemplates that after an employee has completed 20 years of 'qualifying service', he may seek premature retirement after giving three months' notice in writing. The expression 'qualifying service' has been defined under Rule 2 (3) to mean “service qualifying for pension.” The entitlement for “pension” on the other hand is determined under the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II and Rule 3.17-A (i) thereof provides that “all service rendered on establishment, interrupted or continuous, shall count for as 'qualifying service'. The controversy as to whether or not the work-charge service followed by regularization thereof would count for the purpose of granting pension to an employee, has already been authoritatively answered in favour of the employees by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab and others, 1988(5) SLR 27. Following the dictum in Kesar Chand's case (supra), there is no exception but to hold that the service rendered by the petitioner on work-charge basis is also to be counted towards the total qualifying service for pension. In other words, the work-charged service rendered by the petitioner being a qualifying service for pension, fulfills the requirement of C.W.P.No.14195 of 2006 -3- Rule 2 (3) of the 1975 Rules. Consequently and for the reasons afore-stated, this writ petition is allowed and it is directed that since the petitioner had completed more than 20 years of qualifying service much before passing of the impugned order dated 18.8.2006 and/or before he sought premature retirement, the same cannot sustain and is hereby quashed. The respondents are accordingly directed to reconsider the petitioner's case for premature retirement after treating the work-charged service rendered by him towards the 'qualifying service'. The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Copy of the order be given Dasti to learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges. February 19, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE