C.M. No. 2304-05 of 2009 in CWP No.7044 of 2008. Dr. Anil Kumar Saluja Vs. State of Punjab and another. Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG, Punjab. *** C.M. No. 2304-05 of 2009 Application allowed. CWP No. 7044 of 2008 The dispute raised the present petition relates to the counting of qualifying service of the petitioner for retiral benefits in case of voluntary retirement. It is agreed to by learned counsel for the parties that the issue is squarely covered by the judgement of this Court dated 1.8.2008 in CWP No. 12179 of 2008, wherein following observations have been made:- “ It is well settled that ad hoc/work charged or any other service followed by regularization has to be treated as qualifying service for the purposes of pension. A Full Bench judgement of this court in the case of Kesar Chand Vs. State of Punjab 1988 (2) PLR 223 declared Rule 3.17 of the Rules as ultra vires which exclude the period of work charge and ad hoc service from the definition of expression 'qualifying service'. The respondent-State has now added Rule 3.17 (a) which provides that service rendered on the establishment interrupted or continuous has to be counted as qualifying service. Therefore, there is no impediment in holding that the period of ad hoc service rendered by the petitioner from 4.1.1988 to CWP No. 7044 of 2008 -2- 30.11.1993 has to be treated as qualifying period for pension. Once it is so, then it has to be given the same meaning for rule 3 of the Rules.” This petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 16.2.2009 lucky