Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harbhajan Singh vs The Vice Chancellor Punjabi ... on 23 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 13057 of 2018
Date of decision: 23.09.2022
208
Harbhajan Singh ....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The Vice Chancellor, Punjabi University, Patiala and another
....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr. H.S. Saini, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate,
for the respondent.
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)
The petitioner, in the present writ petition filed under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeks counting of his service
rendered by him on ad hoc basis prior to his regular appointment on
31.08.2004 for the purposes of pension, which has been rejected vide the
communication dated 08.11.2017 (Annexure P-11). Reliance has been placed
upon the judgment of the Full Bench in Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab,
1988 (2) PLR 223 for claiming the said benefit apart from the fact that in
similar circumstances, one Balbir Kaur was also granted the similar benefits
in CWP No. 21533 of 2011 in Balbir Kaur vs. Punjabi University, Patiala by
counting the service rendered by her on daily wages and ad hoc service.
We have perused the paper book and a perusal of the same would
go on to show that the reasons for rejection vide the impugned order dated
08.11.2017 (Annexure P-11) were that the Punjab Civil Service Rules
regarding counting of ad hoc service do not provide for the same for
1 of 4
pensionary benefits and the recruitment should have been made through
employment exchange through open advertisement. On account that his
appointment on ad hoc Lecturer was not made through employment exchange
or open advertisement, the relief has been declined for pensionary benefits by
holding that ad hoc service is not to be counted for the said purpose.
It is to be noticed that initially, the petitioner was appointed as as
Project Associate by the Registrar of the University at a consolidated salary
of Rs.8,000/- per month. Thereafter on 12.12.2001 (Annexure P-2), he was
appointed as an ad hoc Lecturer in the said centre in the pay scale of
Rs.8,000-13,500/- and he continued there as such. Thereafter on 31.08.2004,
he was granted a regular appointment letter and his appointment was to be on
a probation for a period of 2 years. The period of probation was successfully
completed by him on 31.01.2007 (Annexure P-4) and thereafter on
19.10.2009 (Annexure P-6), he was appointed on the post of a Project
Director with the same centre namely Dr. Balbir Singh Sahit Centre,
Dehradun. The pay scale as such was Rs.6,400-22,400/- and he was also to
be on probation. The said post was converted to the post of a Director
(Professor Scale) on 12.01.2012 (Annexure P-7) as per decision of the
Syndicate and it is not disputed that he retired on 30.06.2013. He thereafter
continued on the said post by virtue of an extension granted till 13.02.2018
vide order dated 25.07.2016 (Annexure P-8). He thus, claimed his total
service of 13 years 2 months and 29 days which included a period of 1 year, 9
months and 10 days period on a consolidated salary and claimed pension
which was denied by replying to the legal notice dated (Annexure P-11),
which has been impugned.
The stand as such of the respondent-University is that the
2 of 4
appointment initially was non-regular and on ad hoc basis and it was done on
the orders of the Vice Chancellor and as per the report submitted by the
Committee, his case was not liable to be considered for retiral benefits. The
report of the Committee had been annexed as Annexure R-1. The said report
as such in principle is only on this ground that the appointment was not on
regular basis and not on the basis of any rules or regulations.
Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that
the said reasoning as such is not justified once the petitioner was appointed
on regular basis on 31.08.2004 and his probation period had been cleared on
31.01.2007 (Annexure P-4). Thereafter, there is no break in service from
12.12.2001 when he was appointed on ad hoc basis and in pursuance of the
advertisement, he applied for the post of Project Director and then was further
also allowed to continue as a Director, from which he retired on 30.06.2013.
Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment in
Balbir Kaur's case (supra) would be fully applicable which has relied upon
the Full Bench judgment in Kesar Chand's case (supra) that for the purposes
of pension, the ad hoc period is also to be counted since it is a social welfare
measure to meet the hardship in the old age. It is not disputed that the said
judgment was not appealed against by the University and, therefore, also
covers the case of the petitioner.
Thus, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated
08.11.2017 (Annexure P-11) is set aside and a writ of mandamus is issued to
the University to consider the ad hoc period of the petitioner from 12.12.2001
in which he was firstly appointed as ad hoc Lecturer till the date of his
retirement on 30.06.2013 for the purposes of calculating his pensionary
benefits and to pass speaking order on that basis. All retiral benefits
3 of 4
accordingly be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of 3 months from
the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The claim for interest,
however, is not accepted since apparently, the petitioner chose not to agitate
for his grievances from 2013 onwards till serving of the legal notice on
08.02.2018 and the writ petition was filed thereafter.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
JUDGE
23.09.2022 (JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
shivani JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
