IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 17427 of 2008 Date of Decision: 5.3.2010. Dr. Malti Malik & others --Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioners are aggrieved of the order dated 15.2.2007 (Annexures P-7) whereby the claim of the petitioners for counting service rendered in private aided colleges towards the qualifying service has been rejected while deciding their legal notice. The petitioner no.1 was appointed as a regular lecturer in history against a sanctioned post in the aided college namely Nirankari Baba Gurbachan Singh Memorial College, Sohna on 19.7.1979. Her appointment was pursuant to selection made by the committee constituted for the purpose. The petitioner, thereafter, applied for the post of lecturer in history consequent upon the advertisement issued by the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC). She was selected and appointed in the Govt. service as lecturer. On being selected, she resigned from the Govt. aided college and joined the Govt. College, Nagina on 24.12.1986. The petitioner has now retired on attaining the age of superannuation after rendering 19 years 9 months and 11 days service on 30.9.2006. CWP. No. 17427 of 2008 -2- Petitioner no.2 also joined as lecturer in Hindi in the same college on 30.7.1979. He was also selected by the HPSC against the post of lecturer in the Govt. service. On his selection, he also resigned from the Govt. aided college and joined the Govt. College, Hodal, District Faridabad on 24.12.1986. The petitioner is still in service. Petitioner no.1 claims the benefit of service rendered in Govt. aided college for purpose of the pensionary benefits. Having failed to persuade the respondents, petitioner no.1 filed CWP No. 15449 of 2006 in this Court. This petition was disposed of vide order dated 26.9.2006, whereby the respondents therein were directed to take cognizance of the legal notice of the petitioner and decide the same by a speaking order. Resultantly, the respondents have passed the impugned order (Annexure P- 7). The claim of the petitioner stands rejected. The controversy involved in the petition is covered by a judgement of this Court dated 6.11.2009 passed in CWP No. 18544 of 2006, wherein following observations have been made:- “ The issue raised in the above said three writ petitions already stands adjudicated by this court in a decision rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.16817 of 2007 (VijaySingh Vs. State of Haryana and others), decided on July 22, 2009. It is also noticed that the State has taken a similar stand in response to a notice issued in the said writ petitions. Relying upon the ratio laid down in the cases of Harnandan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2007(2) RSJ 437 and Charan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2006(6) SLR 624, decided by two different Division Benches of this court and a case titled Union of India and others Vs. Jawahar Lal Sharma, 2003(3) RSJ 672, the Court has directed the respondents to count the entire service rendered CWP. No. 17427 of 2008 -3- by the petitioners in a privately managed school and in the Government School for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chander Sain Vs. State of Haryanaand others, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 972. In all these cases, the Court has held that the service rendered in the aided school was required to be counted for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits. The issues raised in the writ petitions are covered by the ratio of law laid down in the above said cases. A service rendered in a private school or an aided post, which is receiving grant in aid is also made pensionable and as such, the same is required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits. All the three writ petitions are accordingly allowed in the above terms. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.” In view of the above, this petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement. Petitioners shall be entitled to the similar relief. Let the pensionary benefits of petitioner no.1 be re-determined in accordance with the aforesaid judgement and released within a period of three months. The benefit of the aforesaid judgement shall be conferred upon petitioner no.2 at the time of his retirement. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 5.3.2010. lucky