RSA No. 3518 of 2007 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3518 of 2007 Date of Decision: 7.9.2009 Mate Sabar Singh ......Appellant Versus Union of India and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate, with Shri Amandeep Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Ram Chander, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court, whereby suit for mandatory injunction claiming pensionary benefits on completion of 20 years of qualifying service was dismissed. The plaintiff was appointed on 3.9.1960 as a Pioneer in the General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF). The plaintiff was discharged on 4.4.1974. On 20.4.1982, the appellant was again appointed and on RSA No. 3518 of 2007 (2) 31.12.1983, the appellant was discharged from service. The short question which arises for determination is whether the period from 4.4.1974 till 20.4.1982, is to be counted as the qualifying service, which alone will make the appellant eligible for pension. The first Appellate Court has recorded a finding of fact that though in the written statement, the defendants have used the words that the plaintiff was reinstated, but in fact, the appellant was appointed again on 20.4.1982. Since the appellant has not worked on the post from 4.4.1974 till 20.4.1982, the said period cannot be counted towards the qualifying service. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the number 460 mentioned in the letter dated 20.4.1982 is co-relatable to the number given to the appellant at the time of his discharge on 4.4.1974, therefore, the appellant was reinstated and not re-appointed. However, I do not find any merit in the said argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. The letter of appointment dated 20.4.1982 produced by the appellant as Annexure A.3 with the grounds of appeal, does not refer to the order of discharge or that the appellant is is being reinstated. It is not the case of the appellant that he has been paid wages for the aforesaid period or any order has been passed to the effect that such period is to be taken into consideration for the qualifying service. Mere fact that same number i.e. 460 is mentioned in the order of discharge and/or in order of appointment is not sufficient to hold that the appellant was working continuously. The order dated 20.4.1982 is a fresh order of offer of appointment and thus, the period from 4.4.1974 till 20.4.1982 has rightly not been taken into consideration for the purposes of qualifying service. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material RSA No. 3518 of 2007 (3) irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 7.9.2009 ds