CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11986 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 27, 2009 Kiran Saini .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. K. L. Dhingra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner who is M.A., B.Ed, was appointed as a Punjabi Teacher in Khanewal Khalsa High School, Shahabad (M), District Kurukshetra, on 13.8.1988. He was appointed against an aided and sanctioned post in a school which is recognised. In the year 1997-98, Education Department of the State advertised some posts of Punjabi Teachers. The petitioner applied for appointment to CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11986 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: the said post through proper channel. Upon selection, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Manager of the private school on 14.3.1988 intimating that she stood selected as Punjabi Teacher in the Government service. She accordingly prayed for being relieved to join the new assignment. Her case was duly recommended by the Manager and after acceptance of her resignation, the petitioner was relieved to join the new post. The petitioner accordingly joined the Government service on 7.5.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted several representation for counting her service rendered in the private aided school for retiral benefits. The claim of the petitioner has not been granted and ultimately she has filed the present writ petition. The respondents would respond by saying that the petitioner had resigned from the post of Punjabi Teacher where she was serving and her resignation would entail forfeiture of past service and as such, no pension can be granted to the petitioner for this part of the service. Reliance in this regard is made on Rule 14.9 (a) of Punjab Civil Service Rules, which provides that resignation from public service, dismissal, removal etc. entails forfeiture of past service. Reference is also made to Rule 3.12 of Punjab Civil Service Rules to say that the three conditions are essential to qualify for grant of pension. It is, thus, urged that the service of a Government employee does not qualify for pension unless it confirms to following conditions:- i. The service must be under Government. ii. Employment must be substantive and permanent. iii. The service must be paid by the Government. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11986 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: Reference is also made to Rule 3.16 of the Civil Service Rules, Volume II, which provides that service of the Government employee does not qualify unless he is appointed and his duties are regulated by the Government. It is accordingly stated that the employee of Municipality, grant in aid schools and establishment paid from the house hold allowance of the government are not entitled for pension. Unwittingly, however, the respondents in the reply have conceded that the Government had provided grant in aid to the management of the school for functioning of the school. However, relying upon the provisions of the Civil Service Rules referred to above, it is submitted that this service can not be taken into account for computing the pensionary benefits claimed by the petitioner. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petitioner can not be granted the benefit of service rendered by her on the aided post in the private school. Though the respondents have made reference to the provisions of Rule 4.17 of C.S.R, Volume II, but the same is required to be read in conjunction with Rule 4.19 (b), which clearly provides that resignation of an appointment to take up with proper permission another appointment whether permanent or temporary, service in which count in full or in part is not a resignation of public service. The record would show that the petitioner had submitted a resignation to the Manager of the School clearly intimating that she has been appointed and, thus, should be relieved to join the Government service. Annexure P-2 would show that this prayer of the petitioner was accepted and forwarded to the District Education Officer, Kurukshetra. It was specifically endorsed that the resignation of the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11986 OF 2009 :{ 4 }: petitioner be approved to allow her to be relieved on her appointment in the Government service. The Head Master of the School ultimately made the following endorsement:- “Resignation accepted and she is relieved from the service w.e.f 30 April, 1998 (A.N.) to join Govt. Service.” Thus, the plea that the service rendered by the petitioner can not be counted towards pension or other benefits, can not be accepted as the resignation with permission to join the post can not be treated as a resignation from the Government service. Equally, untenable is the plea that the service rendered by the petitioner on the aided post would not confirm to the conditions contained in Rule 13.12 of the Rules. It is service rendered by the petitioner on a post in Khanewal Khalsa High School, which was receiving grant-in-aid. The petitioner had joined the Government Department after applying through proper channel. The reading of Rule 3.12 in the light of Rule 3.16, it can be said that the conditions for counting the service for the purpose of pension would stand satisfied. Three conditions contained in Rule 3.12 are explained in Rule 3.16 (a) and relevant aspect is as under:- “i. The service of a Government employee does not qualify unless he is appointed and his duties and pay are regulated by the Government or under conditions determined by the Government.” This issue came up for consideration before this Court in another Civil Writ Petition No.16817 of 2007 (Vijay Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others). considering the provisions of Rule 3.12 to 3.16 and after making reference to number of judgments i.e. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11986 OF 2009 :{ 5 }: Harnandan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2007 (2) RSJ 437, Charan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others,, 2006 (6) SLR 624, Chander Sain Vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 972 and Union of India and others Vs. Jawahar Lal Sharma, 2003 (3) RSJ 672, it has been held as under:- “It is, thus, to be seen whether this service now can be excluded for the purpose of grant of pension. If the petitioner had continued to serve on an aided post in a private school, he would have been entitled to count his service rendered therein for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. Would that service be lost to him for the purpose of pension because he has subsequently gone on to join a Government job, which is again a pensionable one? If the result is allowed to operate in this manner, it will be unfair, inequitable and harsh. The ratio of law as laid down in the case of Harnandan , Singh , Charan Singh and Chander Sain (supra) in this background would apply to the facts of the present case. Similar view has clearly been taken by the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jawahar Lal Sharma (Supra). In fact, the Division Bench of this Court in Charan Singh's case (supra) has observed that service rendered by a teacher in private school receiving aid is made pensionable and as such this service can not be ignored for grant of pension. The same is the situation here. Accordingly, I am of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for counting his service rendered on CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11986 OF 2009 :{ 6 }: aided post in a private school for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits.” The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the respondents are directed to count the entire service rendered by the petitioner in a privately managed school w.e.f 13.8.1988(FN) to 30.4.1998 (AN) as a qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. November 27, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE