COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) 1096/2002 Chandra Mohan Pandey …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal through Secretary, Education & Others …….Respondents Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2nd April, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. The petitioner was appointed on 28.2.1967 as Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade on the ad hoc basis. On reporting by duly selected candidate by the Education Selection Board, the services of the petitioner were terminated. Thereafter on 19.3.1969, the petitioner was regularly appointed as Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade and retired on 31.7.2001. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the pension sanctioning authority has not added the period of service of about one year rendered by him from 28.2.1967 to 4.9.1968, which ought to have been added. Interruption period of service has not been condoned and has not been included for computing the pension though the petitioner has completed the qualifying service for pension. The reliance has been placed on Rule 422 of the Civil Service Regulations and Government Orders issued on this Rule 422, which are reproduced as under: “422. Interruptions in service either between to spells of permanent and temporary service or between a spell of temporary and permanent service or vice versa may be condoned by the Pension Sanctioning Authority subject to the following conditions, namely— (1) the interruptions should have been caused by reasons beyond the control of the government servant concerned; (2) Service preceding the interruptions should not be less than of five year’s duration, and in cases where there are two or more such interruption, the total service, pensionary benefits in respect of which will be lost if the interruption are not condoned should not be less than five years, and (3) Interruptions should not be more than of one year’s duration and in cases where there are two or more such interruptions the total period of interruptions sought to be condoned, should not exceed one year.” *Provided that the above power may be exercised by the pension sanctioning authority in cases in which the qualifying service even otherwise is not less that of ten year’s duration. Decisions of the State Government It has been decided, in relaxation of the provisions of Article 422, that in case of re-appointment of a retrenched person on the same or any other post, the interruption between the date of retrenchment and re-appointment shall be treated as condoned but the period of interruption shall not be included in qualifying service. *Added by notification no-G-2-877/X-927- 1958, dated March 31, 1970.” 3. In view of the Government Order on Rule 422, notified by the notification dated 31.3.1970, it was incumbent upon the pension sanctioning authority to have condoned the interruption period and have included the total service for computing the pension. As such, the order of the pension sanctioning authority is contrary to Rule 422 of the Civil Service Regulations and is hereby set aside. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Pension sanctioning authority is directed to include the entire interrupted period of service for the purpose of computing the pension. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) Prabodh