CWP No. 1215 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 1215 of 2006 Date of Decision: March 25, 2009 Hukam Chand ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for respondents No. 1 to 3 and 5. Mr.Sanjay Chauhan,Advocate for respondent No.4. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. Despite last opportunity having been granted on 12.1.2009 and the case thereafter having come up on 27.2.2009 and 9.3.2009 reply on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 has not been filed. Consequently their right to file reply is foreclosed. The petitioner claims that he was appointed on adhoc basis in the year 1979; his services were regularised in the year 1988; he retired in the year 2003 but his adhoc service has not been taken into CWP No. 1215 of 2006 2 account for the purpose of counting his superannuation benefits. In reply the only plea taken is that the petitioner could not be regularised w.e.f. the original date of appointment in view of the State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi reported as 2006(4) SCC 1 and, therefore, he is not entitled for counting such non-regular service for the purpose of pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Sumer Singh v. State of Haryana and others reported as 2009(1) RSJ 86 wherein it has been held as follows:- “During the course of arguments, Mr.Rathee, has submitted that so far as adhoc service rendered by the petitioner followed by regular service from 28.6.1986 to 30.9.1988 is concerned, the benefit of the same has been given to the petitioner for the purposes of pension as his service from 28.11.l985 has been counted. Otherwise also, in authority reported as Kesar Chand, resident of village Naroli v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1988 Punjab and Haryana 265, a Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an employee is entitled to count the adhoc service followed by regular service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “Once the services of a work-charged employee have been regularised, there is no logic to deprive him of the pensionary benefits as are available to other public servants under Rule 3.17 of the Rules. Equal protection of laws must mean the protection of equal laws for all persons similarly situated. CWP No. 1215 of 2006 3 Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness because a provision which is arbitrary involves the negation of equality. Even the temporary or officiating service under the State Government has to be reckoned for determining the qualifying service. It looks to be illogical that the period of service spent by an employee in a work-charged establishment before his regularisation has not been taken into consideration for determining his qualifying service. The classification which is sought to be made among Government servants who are eligible for pension and those who started as work-charged employees and their services regularised subsequently, and the others is not based on any intelligible criteria and, therefore, is not sustainable at law. After the services of a work- charged employee have been regularised, he is a public servant like any other servant. To deprive him of the pension is not only unjust and inequitable but is hit by the vice of arbitrariness, and for these reasons the provisions of sub-rule (ii) of rule 3.17 of the Rules would be liable to be struck down being violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. The fact that the authorities had granted exemption from rules in certain cases would not be justifiable reason for excluding others from the grant of pension and gratuity benefits. For this reason too, Rule 3.17 (ii) is bad at law, as it enables the government to discriminate between employees similarly situated.” So, it is held that the petitioner is entitled to count his adhoc service from 28.6.1986 to 30.9.1988 for the purposes of pensionary benefits.” CWP No. 1215 of 2006 4 The case of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid decision of this Court. In view thereof this petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to count the adhoc service rendered by the petitioner for the purpose of computing his pensionary benefits etc. Needful be done within 3 months of receipt of copy. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE March 25 , 2009 sunita