IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.8073/2008 Decided on: 15.5.2009 Balbir Kaur. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. For the petitioner : Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. The petitioner was appointed on six months temporary basis as O.T. (Punjabi) with effect 1.9.1966. She made representation seeking regularization as Junior Basic Teacher to the Director of Education. The Director of Education permitted the petitioner to continue on temporary basis till the decision was taken pursuant to letter dated 2.6.1967. There was a break with effect from 7.7.1967 to 31.8.1967 due to summer break. She resumed her duties immediately after the summer break on 1.9.1967. She continued to discharge her duties till 12.9.1968. She was regularized on 13.9.1968. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate has strenuously argued that the respondents have not taken into consideration the services of the petitioner rendered with effect from 1.9.1966 up to 1.9.1967 for the purpose of pensionery benefits. He then contended that the petitioner’s temporary services were required to be regularized up to 13.9.1968. He has relied upon rule 13 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the services rendered by the petitioner on temporary basis could not be counted for the purpose of seniority as well as for the pensionery benefits. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The petitioner, as noticed above, was appointed on 1.9.1966. She has worked continuously up to 12.9.1968 on temporary basis. She has also been paid the salary for the vacation period with effect from 7.7.1967 to 31.8.1967. She made several representations to the higher authorities for counting her temporary services followed by regularization for the purpose of pensionery benefits. The representation made by the petitioner was rejected vide Annexure A-6 dated 4.6.2001. Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure A-1 dated 29.4.2002 whereby the respondents themselves have counted the services of the petitioner with effect from 2.9.1967 to 12.9.1968. In other words, the services rendered by the petitioner with effect from 1.9.1966 to 1.9.1967 have not been taken into consideration. It will be apt at this stage to quote rule 13 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 verbatim which reads thus: 3 “13. Commencement of qualifying service Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity: Provided that officiating or temporary service is followed without interruption by substantive appointment in the same or another service or post: Provided further that- (a) in the case of a Government servant in a Group ‘D’ service or post who held a lien or a suspended lien on a permanent pensionable post prior to the 17th April, 1950, service tendered before attaining the age of sixteen years shall not count for any purpose, and (b) in the case of a Government servant not covered by Clause (a) service rendered before attaining the age of eighteen years shall not count, except for compensation gratuity.” A bare perusal of rule 13 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 suggests that the officiating or temporary service if followed without interruption by substantive appointment is to be taken as qualifying service. In the present case the petitioner was appointed on 1.9.1966 and continuously worked up to 12.9.1968. The respondents have only counted the qualifying services of the petitioner with effect from 2.9.1967 to 12.9.1968. The Court is of the firm opinion that the services rendered by the petitioner with effect from 1.9.1966 to 1.9.1967 cannot be rendered otiose. This period as per the language employed in rule 13 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 is to be counted as qualifying services for pensionery benefits. The petitioner has also been paid salary for the 4 vacation period with effect from 7.7.1967 to 31.8.1967. She was permitted to discharge her duties on temporary basis as per Annexure A-2 dated 2.7.1967. In these circumstances Annexure A-6 is declared illegal. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid reasoning, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-6 dated 4.6.2001 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to count the services rendered by the petitioner on temporary basis with effect from 1.9.1966 to 1.9.1967 as qualifying service for pensionery benefits. The petitioner is held entitled to the consequential benefits, which will be calculated and paid by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from today. No costs. 15.5.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*