1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7373/2002. : : Vinod Chandra Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : : Date of Order 1.12.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.Ashish Sharma for Mr.Alok Sharma for the petitioner. Mr.Hemant Gupta, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition seeks to challenge the order dated 16.8.2002 whereby the respondents directed that the period from 1.9.1967 to 28.4.1969 would not be treated as part of qualifying service for grant of pension to the petitioner. This order was passed by the respondents more than three years after the date of retirement of the petitioner on 31.7.1999. Shri Ashish Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis initially for a period of six months vide order dated 21.11.1966 and subsequently he was continued in service till 31.7.1967 on which date his services along with 40 other 2 Engineer Subordinates (Civil) were retrenched on account of abolition of two divisions and 18 sub-divisions of the project organisations. Termination of his serivces was illegal for various reasons including the ground that principle of last come first go was not followed. The Government directed to the Chief Engineer of the Public Health Department to modify the termination order. Thus the petitioner continued in service. Subsequently, he was again served notice of termination which was again thereafter withdrawn. A perusal of the order dated 24.4.1990 passed by the respondents indicates that termination order of the petitioner and others was subjected to challenge before this Court and it was pursuant to judgment of this Court that the petitioner was reinstated in service. During this time he appears to have remained out of job from 1.9.1967 to 28.4.1969. In view of the judgment of this Court, the aforesaid period was regularised by grant of extraordinary leave to the petitioner. This period was counted for granting of annual grade increments, but was directed not be entitled for any arrears of service. Obviously the direction of this Court was for the grant of notional benefits of the aforesaid period of the petitioner, but not actual benefits. This order was passed as far as back in 24.4.1990 and respondents 3 have subsequently sought to nullify the effect of the order by passing the impugned order dated 16.8.2002. The respondents have sought to justify this order that the same was passed in view of the order of the Pension Directorate but they could not point out why the order was passed more than 12 years after the passing of the aforesaid order dated 24.4.1990 and more than three years after the date of retirement of the petitioner. The order is exfacie illegal and arbitrary because once the respondents decided to grant notional benefits to the petitioner for the very same period including by granting annual grade increment for all this time, the petitioner in fact would be deemed to continue in service as well and he would, therefore, be entitled to count the period of service rendered and followed by regularisation of service towards qualifying service for grant of pension. Rule 12 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 provides that qualifying service of government servant shall commence from the date he takes over charge of the post to which he is first appointed, either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity. In the present case, the initial appointment of the petitioner was made on ad hoc basis, but it was followed by regulaisation and therefore the entire service starting from initial date of appointment could 4 be treated as a part of service. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 16.8.2002 passed by Chief Engineer, PWD Jaipur is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to grant pensionary benefit to the petitioner from the date of initial period i.e. 21.11.1966. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum as per Rule 89 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 from the period of delay beyond 60 days from the date of his retirement on the amount of arrears that may be found due. Compliance of the judgment be made within three months from the date copy of the judgment is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.9.