SBCWP NO.1148/02. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1148/2002. Hardev Prasad Verma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order:- January 05, 2009. HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri M.F. Baig for the petitioner. Shri Hemant Gupta, Additional Government Counsel. ***** Reportable BY THE COURT :- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that respondents be directed to grant him pension from the date of his initial appointment w.e.f. 1/7/1966 till he retired on 8/2/2000 instead of 6/7/1972 to 8/2/2000. 3) Shri M.F. Baig, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that although initially the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 21/1/1966 (Annexure-1) and, thereafter, on 12/5/1966 but since there was a break in two, he is not pressing for that period for qualifying service. He however was appointed on 1/1/1966 on ad hoc temporary basis for a SBCWP NO.1148/02. 2 period of three months and thereafter his appointment was extended from time to time vide orders dated 7/3/1967 (Annexure-4), 24/9/1968 (Annexure-5) and 13/9/1971 (Annexure-6) and each time with the stipulation that his services would be for the period of three months or untill duly selected candidates are made available. Factually, petitioner was appointed by the order of the Tribunal w.e.f. 6/7/1972 and thereafter continued in the services of the respondents till he retired. The respondents therefore ought to have treated his entire period of service as part of the qualifying service of pension. 4) Shri Hemant Gupta, learned Additional Government Counsel has opposed the writ petition and has argued that appointment of the petitioner was made only on ad-hoc temporary basis and that it was for the time specified. Learned Government Counsel submitted that an ad-hoc temporary post cannot be counted as part of the qualifying service. The writ petition therefore be dismissed. 5) Rule 12(b) of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short, “Rules of 1996”) inter-alia provides that subject to the provisions of these rules, the qualifying service of a 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. Corresponding rule to this rule as the Rule SBCWP NO.1148/02. 3 188 B of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short, “RSR”) which provides that “Notwithstanding the provisions contained in Rule 185, 187, 188 and 188(A) in respect of Government servants retiring on or after 31st January, 1979, the continuous temporary or officiating service under the Government rendered after a Government servant has attained the minimum qualifying age shall count in full as qualifying service, except :- (a) periods of temporary or officiating service in a non-pensionable establishment; (b) periods of service in a work-charged establishment; (c) periods of service in a post paid from contingencies.]. 6) In the present case, it is not in dispute that petitioner was working on the same post on which he was initially appointed on regular basis and there was no break of service atleast from 1/7/1966. But three categories of services referred to in Rule 188 (b) of the RSR have been excluded for the purpose of counting as qualifying service and service rendered by the petitioner does not fall in any of them. He was actively serving the respondents on a post which was pensionable post. There is no impediment in law in counting such service rendered even a ad-hoc/temporary basis as part of the qualifying service for grant of pension. Action of the respondents in refusing to SBCWP NO.1148/02. 4 count the aforesaid period of service for the purpose of grant of pension cannot be sustained in law. 7) In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to count the period of services rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 1/7/1966 till he was retired on 8/2/2000 and accordingly pay him all retiral benefits and other terminal dues together with interest @6% p.a. Compliance of the judgment shall be made within a period of three months from the date, its certified copy is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil