IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.880 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.9.2009 State of Haryana and others. -----Appellants Vs. Balwan Singh. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl.A.G., Haryana. for the appellants. ----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, directing condonation of break of period from 26.2.1981 to 4.10.1984, during which the respondent was out of service, for purposes of pension. 2. The respondent was appointed in Haryana Roadways and he worked from 5.2.1974 to 26.2.1981 when his services were terminated by the appointing authority. However, in departmental appeal, he was ordered to be ‘reinstated’ without backwages. He resumed his service on 5.10.1984 and served till his superannuation on 31.5.2006. Since pension was not given to the respondent after his retirement, he filed writ petition. In its LPA No.880 of 2009 reply, the Haryana Roadways stated that the respondent could not get pension for the period from 5.2.1974 to 18.10.1984 as break in service during the period he remained out of service had not been condoned. 3. Learned Single Judge held that since the respondent was ordered to be reinstated, his service had to be taken in continuity and the break of period during which he remained out of service had to be condoned. Accordingly, direction was issued for passing an order on claim for condonation, having regard to the fact that order of termination had been set aside and he had been reinstated and also for considering the claim for pension under the retiral benefits. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. 5. Only contention put forward is that since while reinstating the respondent, direction was issued that he will not be paid anything for the period during which he remained out of service, the break period during which he remained out of service, could not be condoned. 6. We do not find any merit in this contention. 7. It is not disputed that the respondent was ‘reinstated’ by the Appellate Authority, which implied that he was to resume his duty in continuation of earlier service. Denail of backwages was not denial of past service. Break in service was on account of order of termination and not on account of any voluntary act of the respondent. There is, thus, no justification not to condone the 2 LPA No.880 of 2009 delay only on the ground that the respondent was not to be paid backwages. 8. We do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 9. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 16, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ashwani JUDGE 3