IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.4501 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 15, 2009 Mansa Ram .....PETITIONER Versus The State of Haryana and another ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.S.K.Sud, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Kirti Singh, A.A.G.,Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr.Raman B. Garg, Advocate, for respondent No.2. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner is a retired employee of Municipal Council, Yamuna Nagar. He retired as Safai Karamchari on 30.4.2006 on attaining the age of superannuation. In this petition, the claim of the petitioner is for counting the ad hoc/temporary service alleged to have been rendered by him from 16.9.1962 to 1.2.1969 towards the pensionary benefits. It is admitted position that the petitioner was appointed on regular basis in Municipal Committee, Yamuna Nagar on 1.2.1969 and he retired from service on 30.4.2006, and by taking into consideration the said period, the retiral benefits have been paid to him. However, the petitioner claims that the temporary/ad hoc service from 16.9.1962 to 1.2.1969 rendered by him should be counted towards the qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. In this C.W.P. No.4501 of 2008 -2- regard, in para No.2 of the petition, the petitioner has stated that he was appointed as Safai Karamchari on a consolidated salary of Rs.80/- and thereafter on Rs.111/- in the then Municipal Committee, Yamuna Nagar on 16.9.1962. Thereafter, he was appointed on regular basis on 1.2.1969. It has been further stated that the service rendered before regularization was continuous and without any break. The respondents in the written statement have specifically controverted the aforesaid averments. It has been stated that the averments made by the petitioner are totally incorrect. He was never appointed as Safai Karamchari on a consolidated salary of Rs.80/- on 16.9.1962 or any subsequent date. He never served as Safai Karamchari from 16.9.1962 to 1.2.1969. It has been further stated that the services of the petitioner were never regularized on 1.2.1969. Actually, he was appointed for the first time on 1.2.1969. In the replication, the petitioner again re-iterated the averments made in the petition. No documentary proof has been annexed. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that only on the basis of the averments made by the petitioner in para No.2 of the petition, it cannot be held that the petitioner had worked as Safai Karamchari on ad hoc/temporary basis from 16.9.1962 to 1.2.1969 and his services were regularized on 1.2.1969. Since the petitioner had not rendered any service prior to his appointment on regular basis for the first time on 1.2.1969, therefore, no relief as claimed by the petitioner can be granted. Dismissed. October 15, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE