C.W.P. No. 11852 of 2010 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 11852 of 2010 Date of Decision: Aug. 11, 2011 Asha Sharma ............................................ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ................... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. H.S.Baath, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Addl. A.G. Punjab. ... RITU BAHRI, J. Petitioner is seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to count the temporary/ad-hoc/adjustment service of the petitioner from 1.1.1973 to 1.10.1980 prior to regularization towards qualifying service for pensionary benefits. Petitioner was appointed to serve on ad-hoc basis against leave vacancy from 1/8/73 to 12/4/74, 6/6/74 to C.W.P. No. 11852 of 2010 [ 2 ] 6/12/74, 17/5/75 to 13/1/76, 14/3/77 to 1/4/77, 5/4/77 to 29/9/77, 3/8/78 to 11/9/78, 15/1/76 to 1/3/76, 2/3/76 to 8/4/76, 8/4/80 to 1/10/80. The petitioner also served on ad- hoc basis against a vacant post from 10/1/73 to 16/6/73, 2/6/77 to 29/9/77, 30/9/77 to 22/6/78, 30/9/77 to 22/12/77, 23/12/77 to 29/3/78, 29/3/78 to 22/6/78. In the reply filed to the petition it is admitted that the petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis on 10.1.1973 at the Government Ele. School Babowal, Block Majitha Amritsar. Her services were regularized on 2.10.1980 as J.B.T. Teacher and she retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2004. Her pensionary benefits had earlier been granted by including ad-hoc service against vacant post. Ad-hoc service rendered by her against leave vacancy has not been counted towards pensionary benefits as per Rule 2.8(b) of Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume 2 and clarification issued by Govt. of Punjab, Department of Finance vide letter dated 10.9.2007. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment passed by this Court in Harjit Kaur v. State of Punjab & Others (C.W.P. No. 11451 of 2008 decided on 21.4.2009) (Annexure P2). In this case the precise question before the Court was whether ad-hoc service rendered by an employee against a leave vacancy can be counted for the purpose of pension or not. Rule 3.17 and 3.17(a) of the CSR C.W.P. No. 11852 of 2010 [ 3 ] does not make any distinction between ad-hoc service rendered against leave vacancy or vacant post. Therefore, in view of the clear mandate of Rule 4.23 different spells of ad- hoc services are to be counted for the purpose of pension. This issue also stands concluded by a Full Bench of this Court in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab & Others 1988 (5) SLR 27. Since there is no distinction between ad-hoc service and leave arrangement, the petitioner's service rendered against a leave vacancy is also liable to be counted towards pensionary benefits. The writ petition is allowed in view of the decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Harjit Kaur's case (supra) and a direction is given to the respondents to count the period spent on ad-hoc basis against the leave vacancy towards pensionary benefits. Re-fix the pension and release the consequential benefits to the petitioner within a period of four months. 11.8.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE