C.W.P.No.14721 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.14721 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 12.05.2011 Jasbir Singh ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Jasbir Singh, petitioner in person. Ms.Monica Chhibbar Sharma, DAG, Punjab. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present writ petition is for counting the previous service rendered by the petitioner in different departments for pensionary benefits which claim has been rejected by the State of Punjab vide order dated 19.2.2003 (Annexure P-18). It is the submission of the petitioner, who has appeared in person, that before joining as Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class on 10.6.1992 on which post he continued till 13.6.2008 when he superannuated, the petitioner worked as a Clerk in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Ropar from 6.10.1980 to 19.2.1987, as an Assistant in Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation (PSIEC) from 20.2.1987 to 14.1.1991 (F.N.), Welfare Officer, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh from 14.1.1991 (F.N.) to 9.6.1992 and as such, the said service should have been counted for the pensionary C.W.P.No.14721 of 2009 -2- benefits as there is no break in service. The petitioner had applied for these posts through proper channel and had obtained necessary sanction/permission for joining the next post. The petitioner contends that the requirement for the service to be counted for pensionary benefits in different departments is contained in Rule 3.12 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol.II Chapter III, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) which enumerates three conditions which are (i) that the service must be under Government; (ii) the employment must be substantive and permanent and (iii) the service must be paid by the Government. Since the petitioner who worked on all these posts fulfilled these three conditions, he was entitled to counting of the service for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits. The only ground which the respondents have taken for not granting the benefit to the petitioner is that he had submitted his resignation from each of these posts prior to his joining the post of Civil Judge. Petitioner contends that the respondents have not taken into consideration Rule 3.17-A (1) (v) of the Rules, Vol. I which deals with the computation of the period for pension. According to this Rule, service preceding resignation except where such resignation is allowed to be withdrawn in public interest by the Appointing Authority as provided in the relevant Rules or where such resignation has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment whether temporary or permanent under the Government where service qualifies for pension, has to be counted for pensionary benefits. Since on all these occasions, the resignation had been submitted after seeking proper permission and sanction, firstly, for applying for the post on which the petitioner had taken C.W.P.No.14721 of 2009 -3- up the assignment and then he had to resign for taking up his new appointment on another post, the claim of the petitioner would be covered by clause (v) of Rule 3.17-A (1) of the said Rules. On this basis, he contends that the respondents have, without properly considering the ambit and scope of the said rule, rejected the claim of the petitioner by passing a cryptic order dated 19.2.2003 by observing that the benefit of previous service of the petitioner in different departments for the purpose of pensionary benefits etc. cannot be granted being not covered under the Rules. He, on this basis, prays for quashing of the impugned order dated 19.2.2003 (Annexure P-18) and for issuance of a direction to the respondents to count the previous service rendered by him in various departments for the purpose of granting pensionary benefits. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that since the petitioner had resigned from service, he would not be entitled to the benefit claimed by him and as such his claim has rightly been rejected by the respondent-State of Punjab. I have considered the arguments of the parties. The two rules are relevant as far as the claim of the petitioner is to be considered i.e. Rule 3.12 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol. II Chapter 3 and Rule 3.17-A (1) (v) of the said Rules. For convenience, Rule 3.12 is reproduced herein-below. “3.12. The service of a Government employee does not qualify for pension unless it conforms to the following three conditions:- First- The service must be under Government. Second- The employment must be substantive and C.W.P.No.14721 of 2009 -4- permanent. Third- The service must be paid by Government. These three conditions are fully explained in the following rules. Note.- The question whether service in a particular office or department qualifies for pension or not is determined by rules which in force at the time such service was rendered; orders subsequently issued declaring the service to be non-qualifying, are not applicable with retrospective effect.” The three conditions as specified in this Rule stand fulfilled by the petitioner as the said fact has not been disputed by the respondents. The only other Rule which could, to some extent, be invoked by the respondents for declining the benefit to the petitioner is Rule 3.17-A (1) (v) of the Rules which reads as follows:- “3.17-A. (1) Subject to the provisions of rule 4.23 and other rules and except in the cases mentioned below, all service rendered on establishment, interrupted or continuous, shall count as qualifying service:- (i) to (iv) xxxx xxxx xxxx (v) Service preceding resignation except where such resignation is allowed to be withdrawn in public interest by the appointing authority as provided in the relevant rules or where such resignation has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointed whether temporary or C.W.P.No.14721 of 2009 -5- permanent under the Government where service qualifies the pension. (vi) to (ix) xxxx xxxx xxxx” Perusal of this Rule would clearly indicate that the claim of the petitioner would be fully covered in his favour in the light of the undisputed fact that the petitioner at the time of taking up the new assignment in the different departments had firstly applied through proper channel and secondly, on his selection, submitted his resignation which was duly accepted by the Competent Authority. It is also not in dispute that the appointments which the petitioner had taken w.e.f. 6.10.1980 on different posts on all occasions prior to his appointment as Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class on 10.06.1992, were under the Government where service was qualified for pension. Thus, the mandate of the Rule stood fully complied with in favour of the petitioner and, thus, the petitioner could not have been denied the benefit of counting his prior service in different departments for grant of pensionary benefits. Reliance has also been placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Hem Raj Mittal, 1992 (2) SCT 116 and a Single Bench judgement of this Court in the case of M.M.Lal Bareja vs. State of Haryana, 1995 (2) PLR 75 which also hold to the similar effect. In the light of what has been held above and in the light of the two judgments referred to above, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.2.2003 (Annexure P-18) passed by respondent- No.1 is hereby quashed. A direction is hereby issued to the respondent- State of Punjab to count the previous service rendered by the petitioner in C.W.P.No.14721 of 2009 -6- different departments for pensionary benefits and on such counting, the necessary relief be granted to him. The arrears, if any, on the counting of the previous service rendered by him in different departments for pension, shall be disbursed to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. May 12, 2011 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE