LPA No. 171 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 171 of 2010 Date of Decision 09.07.2010 State of Haryana & others -----Appellants Versus Capt. Krishan Mohan Thapar (Retd.) ---Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Ms. Mamta Singhal Talwar, Advocate for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. Kumar, J. The instant appeal by the State of Haryana under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 06.05.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.P. No. 5879 of 2004. The learned Single Judge has recorded categorical findings that the petitioner-respondent has rendered service from 09.10.1967 to 08.04.1970 (2 years, 6 months and 26 days) and his date of birth is 01.10.1939. In terms of the Rule 3.9 of the Civil Service Rules, Volume II, he had completed 18 years of service on 31.03.1997 and therefore, he was eligible for the service benefit after 01.10.1967. The stand of the appellants was found to be contrary to Rule 3.9 of the Civil Services Rules. The leaned Single Judge also rejected LPA No. 171 of 2010 -2- another ground that the case of the petitioner-respondent was not covered by Rule 3.17(a) of the Civil Services Rules. According to the aforesaid Rules, all services interrupted or continuous followed by confirmation are to be regarded as qualifying service and the period of break is liable to be omitted. Therefore, the gap in service was liable to be condoned and accordingly, petitioner-respondent became entitled to count the period of service rendered from 09.10.1967 to 08.04.1970 and from 12.03.1993 to 31.03.1997 as qualifying service for the purposes of pension etc. The learned Single Judge also rejected another plea urged against the petitioner-respondent that in terms of Rule 4.19(a) of the Civil Services Rules- Vol. II talks of resignation from public service in the specified circumstances in case of resignation from public service, dismissal or removal from it, over anti-national activities such as sabotage, espionage or for misconduct. The petitioner-respondent would not be entitled to the grant of benefit of past service which will entail forfeiture. Therefore, the aforesaid Rule was not applicable to the case of the petitioner-respondent. The learned Single Judge also concluded that benefit in terms of the Rule 4.19 (a) regarding increments can also not be denied to the petitioner-respondent. As a result, the writ petition was allowed with a direction to the appellant to calculate the service of the petitioner- respondent w.e.f. 23.01.1963 to 16.09.1967 and then from 09.10.1967 to 08.04.1970 and lastly from 12.03.1993 to 31.03.1997 for the purposes of increments and pension within three months LPA No. 171 of 2010 -3- from the receipt of the copy of the order. After hearing learned State counsel at some length, we are of the considered view that no case for interference in the direction issued by the learned Single Judge is made out. The period of service rendered by the petitioner-respondent deserves to be treated as qualifying service and pensionary benefits have been rightly granted. There is no rule to admit the appeal as no substantive question of law much less a question of law would arise for determination. Therefore, appeal is liable to be dismissed. For the reasons aforementioned, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE July 9, 2010 Atul