Regular Second Appeal No.2785 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2785 of 2010 Date of Decision: January 10, 2011 State of Haryana and others. ….Appellants Versus Mam Chand Yadav ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Deepak Jindal, DAG, Haryana. for the appellants. **** SABINA, J.(ORAL) Plaintiff Mam Chand Yadav had filed a suit for declaration that he was entitled to receive pension after counting his service from 05.08.1974 to 28.11.1977 rendered by him in the Municipal Committee, Rewari. The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 24.07.2009. Aggrieved by the same, defendants/State filed the appeal and the same was dismissed by the District Judge, Rewari vide judgment and decree dated 08.01.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants-State. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that he was appointed as Clerk with the Municipal Committee, Rewari on 5.71974. Thereafter he applied for the post of Auditor through proper channel and joined the said post on 28.11.1977. He had worked to the entire satisfaction of his employer and retired from service on 31.12.2006. However, while calculating his -1- Regular Second Appeal No.2785 of 2010 pension, his service rendered by him in Municipal Committee, Rewari was not taken into consideration. The defendants averred in the written statement that service rendered by the plaintiff in Municipal Committee, Rewari was not liable to be counted for calculating his pension. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Courts below: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for addition of service from 05.08.1974 to 28.11.1977 rendered by him in Municipal Committee, Rewari for the purpose of pensionary benefits? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction on the arrears? OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 5. Relief.” After hearing the learned State counsel I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The facts of the case are not in dispute. Admittedly, respondent- plaintiff had worked with Municipal Committee, Rewari from 05.08.1974 to 28.11.1977 and had thereafter joined as an Auditor with the defendants. It has been held in case of Diwan Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, 1990(1) SLR-762 as under: “3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I find that the petitioner deserves to be allowed and the respondents are duty bound to release forthwith the arrears of pension and other monetary claims made by the petitioner. Once, it is established that the petitioner joined the -2- Regular Second Appeal No.2785 of 2010 service of Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur on 1st September, 1949 and thereafter joined Government College, Hoshiarpur on 13th May, 1952, and served there upto 14th October, 1957, when his services were provincialised with effect from the following day, that is, 15th October, 1957, the entire service rendered by the petitioner right from 1st September, 1949, till the date of his superannuation, that is, 31st October, 1979, had to be counted for the purpose of pension. For maintaining continuity in service, notional breaks for the summer vacation, if any, had to be ignored for the pension purpose as the petitioner was not to be taken as if he was an employee engaged on daily wages and was not to be paid for the period of summer vacation. Accordingly, the relief with regard to death-cum-retirement gratuity and commutation of pension had to be granted to him after re-fixing the same on the basis of total length of service from 1st September, 1949, to 31st October, 1979.” Relying upon the said decision, the Courts below have rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. 10.01.2011 (SABINA) vcgarg JUDGE -3-