CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13120 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 26,2009 Man Mohan Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. J. S. Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. By invoking the provisions of Rule 4.2-A of Civil Services Rules, Volume II, (for short, “the Rules”) the petitioner seeks a mandamus for adding period of five years to his service for calculating his pension, though he may not have actually rendered this service. The petitioner joined Industries Department of the Haryana Government as Senior Technical Officer (Class II) on 22.8.1972. He was appointed on adhoc basis, though after being selected by a Selection Committee. Subsequently, this post was CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13120 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: advertised by Haryana Public Service Commission. The petitioner was fulfilling all the essential qualifications and the experience prescribed for the post. He was accordingly selected and appointed on regular basis on 2.7.1975. There was no gap between the two services. At the time of initial entry into the service on adhoc basis, the petitioner was aged 29 years 9 months and 7 days. The petitioner continued to work on different posts and finally retired on 30.11.2000. He now prays for adding service of 5 years to his pensionable service by invoking the provisions of Rule 4.2 (A) of the Rules have being a late entrant. In addition, the petitioner also relied upon some instructions issued by Government of Haryana in the year 2001. He had submitted representation in this regard on 20.2.2001. If this service is added to his qualifying service for pension, his service as on the date of superannuation will increase to 33 years and 20 days. The petitioner submitted yet another representation on 10.5.2001, seeking the same benefit. He claims that the Director, Industries recommended his case to the Secretary of the Department. The Secretary, however, wrote back to the Director, seeking some explanation as to how the petitioner is covered by the instructions. This was replied to by the Director on 10.12.2002. Thereafter there was no response, till the Secretary wrote back to the Director in the year 2004. Director replied on 4.10.2004 maintaining the earlier position. It is claimed that the Secretary sat over the file and sought some more information during July 2005. Some information was supplied by the Director during May 2006 and ultimately after considering the case of the petitioner, the Secretary replied on 26.7.2006 that the the case of the petitioner is time CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13120 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: barred. The petitioner thereafter appears to have served a legal notice. The matter was again taken up by the Director and ultimately the petitioner was informed on 1.8.2007 that his case was not covered under Rule 4.2(A) and, thus, his request was declined. The petitioner still gave a representation on 18.12.2007 claiming that his case has been wrongly rejected twice. Thereafter, he has filed Civil Writ Petition No.16939 of 2008, which was disposed of by this Court on 24.9.2008. It is stated that no action still was taken on the representation of the petitioner, when he filed another writ petition No.7934 of 2009. This writ petition, however, was got dismissed as withdrawn 25.5.2009 with liberty to file fresh one on the same cause of action. The present writ petition is, thus, filed pursuant to the liberty left with the petitioner as afore-mentioned. It is seen that the petitioner has retired from service in the year 2000 and has a pensionable service to his credit. He prays for adding nearly five years of service to his pensionable service by invoking the provisions of Rule 4.2(A) of the Rules by pleading that he entered the service late and as such, can seek the adding of this service in terms of the Rules. Reading of Rule 4.2(A) would clearly show that it is a permissive provision and does not go to lay down any mandate for adding the service , which can be claimed as a matter of right. This Rule makes a provision for adding service qualifying for superannuation pension not exceeding 1/4th of the length of his service or the actual period by which his age at the time of recruitment exceeds 25 years or a period of five years, whichever is CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13120 OF 2009 :{ 4 }: least. The adding of the service, however, is subject to the conditions contained in the Rule. The service or a post has to be one for which Post Graduate Research or specialist qualification or experience in Scientific Technological or professional field is essential and to which a candidates of more than 25 years of age are normally recruited. Rule 4.2(A) is reproduced below:- “4.2(a). An officer appointed to a service or post may add to his service qualifying for superannuation pension (but nor for any other class of pension) the actual period not exceeding one fourth of the length of his service or the actual period by which his age at the time of recruitment exceeds twenty five years or a period of five years, whichever is least, if the service or post is one:- I. for which post graduate research or specialist qualification, or experience in scientific, technological or professional fields is, essential, and II. to which candidates of more than twenty five years of age are normally recruited.” As per the rule, the service as referred and specified in the rule, can be added to the service qualifying for superannuation pension. This service can not be added to any other class of pension. The purpose of adding service appears to be to make one eligible for earning pension if he is falling short of minimum service for getting superannnuation pension being late entrant and, thus, retiring before earning a superannuation pension. There would hardly be a purpose or need to add a service to increase the pension if one has already earned a superannuation pension. If the purpose was to add service, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13120 OF 2009 :{ 5 }: then there was no need to exclude the other types of pensions from the purview of adding service. Further, this adding of service has to be if the service or the post is one for which post graduate research or specialist qualification, or experience etc. is essential. The petitioner was appointed to a Class II post, for which the essential qualification was not the post graduate research or any such specialist qualification or requirement of experience in Scientific Technological professional fields. The petitioner was appointed as Senior Technical Officer in the Industry Department. Though his age at the time of recruitment had exceeded 25 years but the condition that this service or a post was such where post graduate research or specialist qualification was essential is apparently not fulfilled. The reference by the counsel to condition No.2 noted above to submit that the candidates to this post can be recruited from the age group of 25 years to 45 years would also not mean much and this would not be the only service to which appointments as such are being made. The requirement of age to seek counting of service would be in addition to the first requirement laid down in the Rules and i.e. that the service or the post has to be one, which is to be manned by post graduate research etc. These two conditions are clearly inter-linked. The purpose behind this Rule obviously is that a person who has to acquire a post graduate research or a specialist qualification in a field or experience in Scientific Technological or professional field would certainly take some extra time to acquire such qualification, thus, would be of older in age at the stage of joining the service. This may not be so where the essential qualifications for entry into the service can be acquired without spending extra time. Such persons, who are CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13120 OF 2009 :{ 6 }: to be recruited with such qualifications, would obviously have spent time in acquiring the qualifications and, thus, would be older in age as compared to those who are generally to be recruited to the Government service. This Rule apparently is made to remove the disadvantage, if any, suffered by such person. That being the apparent purpose of the rule, it would has to be strictly construed. Thus rule would operate only if all the conditions contained in this Rule are met and are satisfied. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out to any document on record to indicate that the petitioner was appointed to a service or a post, which required post graduate research or some such specialist qualification or an experience which required extra time to acquire and was the cause for late entry into the service. The provision of pension of those who entered late into the service is generally made so that those persons are able to earn pension. Once a person who may have entered late, has a pensionable service to earn pension, such Rule may not apply as noted above. This Rule apparently has been made to cater for such like situation where one is not able to earn pension because of being a late entrant. The petitioner otherwise has earned pension. By adding the service, his pensionable service is to increase. Thus, he would earn more pension. This apparently can not be the purpose of this Rule. The petitioner otherwise has filed this writ petition nearly after nine years of his retirement. The cause accrued to him in the year 2000. To explain this delayed approach, the counsel would refer to earlier writ and the representation filed by him, which remained pending from the year 2001 onward. Why the petitioner waited so CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13120 OF 2009 :{ 7 }: long is not explained. He awaited from the years 2001 to 2006 for the outcome of the representation. Representation, though rejected on 26.7.2006, he decided to serve legal notice in response to which he was informed that his case was not covered by Rule 4.2(A). The petitioner still chose to file another representation. The petitioner has, thus, delayed in approaching the Court for which there is no valid justification. Writ petition, thus, would deserve to be dismissed on this ground as well. Dismissed. August 26, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE