Mastan Singh Bhatia vs State Of Haryana And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 22168 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Mastan Singh Bhatia vs State Of Haryana And Another on 18 December, 2023

Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi

Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi

                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162506




CM-21356-CWP-2023 in/&              -1-              2023:PHHC:162506
CWP-14589-2005

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

101                                            CM-21356-CWP-2023 in/&
                                               CWP-14589-2005
                                               Date of Decision :-18.12.2023


Mastan Singh Bhatia                                              ..Petitioner


                                 Versus


State of Haryana and others                                  ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present:     Mr. Mayank Garg, Advocate for
             Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Mr. Pankaj Middha, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

                          ***

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

CM-21356-CWP-2023

Present application has been filed for fixing the main writ

petition at an early actual date of hearing and dispose the main petition in

view of the judgment in CWP-15081-2011, titled as Shanno Devi vs. State

of Haryana and others, decided on 11.04.2012 (Annexure A-1), keeping in

view the fact that the petitioner is 75 years of age and is still waiting for his

entitled pensionary benefits.

Notice of the application to the respondent-State.

Mr. Pankaj Middha, Addl. A.G. Haryana accepts notice on

behalf of the respondents-State and raises no objection for the grant of

prayer as made in the present application.

Keeping in view the joint request of the parties, application is

1 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162506

CM-21356-CWP-2023 in/& -2- 2023:PHHC:162506 CWP-14589-2005

allowed and the main writ petition is taken up for hearing today itself.

CWP-14589-2005

1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the

services which the petitioner had rendered with the respondent-department

on adhoc basis starting from 07.07.1970 till 30.11.1972 has not been taken

into account as qualifying service for computing the pensionary benefits of

the petitioner, which action on the part of the respondents is contrary to the

settled principle of law as well as rules governing the service.

2. Certain facts need to be mentioned for the correct appreciation

of the issue in hand.

3. Petitioner was appointed as Junior Auditor after his name was

sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Selection process was undertaken

by the respondents and ultimately the petitioner was appointed on

07.07.1970 as Junior Auditor. The petitioner continued working as such

when the same post was advertised by the department to be filled up on

regular basis and petitioner competed for the post in question and was

selected against the regular post by the authority concerned on 13.11.1972.

4. Before the petitioner could be given appointment on regular

basis keeping in view his regular selection, while he was working on adhoc

basis on the same post, the respondents relieved him from service on

30.11.1972 but ultimately keeping in view the selection of the petitioner on

the said post of Junior Auditor, petitioner was again appointed on

10.02.1973 on regular basis.

5. The petitioner continued working on the said post till he

attained the age of superannuation and ultimately retired on 31.07.2005.

                                      2 of 7

                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162506




CM-21356-CWP-2023 in/&             -3-              2023:PHHC:162506
CWP-14589-2005

After the retirement of the petitioner, when his pensionary benefits were to

be calculated, the benefit of qualifying service starting from 10.02.1973 till

retirement was given and the earlier services rendered by the petitioner with

the respondent-department on adhoc basis from 07.07.1970 till 30.11.1972

was not taken into account as qualifying service for computing the

pensionary benefits.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

was entitled for the grant of benefit of adhoc service starting from

07.07.1970 till 30.11.1972 as qualifying service for computing his

pensionary benefits.

7. Upon notice of motion, respondents have filed reply wherein, it

has been stated that the claim of the petitioner was not covered under Rule

3.17 (A) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (as applicable to Haryana) at the

time when the petitioner had retired from service, wherein it has been

mentioned that only adhoc service which leads to confirmation can be

treated as qualifying service, whereas, in the present case, the petitioner

stood relieved on 30.11.1972 and was not in service on 01.12.1972 till

10.02.1973 and hence, as there is a gap between the two services, benefit of

earlier service cannot be granted to the petitioner however, claim of the

petitioner does not fall under any of the exception of Rule 4.21 of the said

Rules.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the claim of

the petitioner is not maintainable as the petitioner was freshly appointed on

10.02.1973 hence, the earlier services rendered by the petitioner on adhoc

basis cannot be taken into account for any purpose much less to be treated as

3 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162506

CM-21356-CWP-2023 in/& -4- 2023:PHHC:162506 CWP-14589-2005

qualifying service for computing his pensionary benefits.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the record with their able assistance.

10. As per the facts, which have been noticed hereinbefore, the

petitioner was initially appointed through Employment Exchange after

undergoing due selection process on 07.07.1970 as Junior Auditor on adhoc

basis, on which post, the petitioner continued working till 30.11.1972. It is a

conceded fact that the petitioner while working on adhoc basis applied for

the post of Junior Auditor when the same was advertised by the respondent-

department to be filled through proper selection and the petitioner got

selected on the said post on 13.11.1972 but due to the non-grant of

appointment, the petitioner was relieved from the said post on 30.11.1972 to

be again appointed in pursuance to the regular selection, which the petitioner

had cleared while working on adhoc basis in service on 13.11.1972.

11. In the present case, relieving of the petitioner from the post of

Junior Auditor while working on adhoc basis, is due to the non-grant of

appointment by the respondents despite the fact that the petitioner had

already been selected much before his relieving from the post of Junior

Auditor hence, in the present case, where the appointment order of the

petitioner was delayed despite being selected through proper selection, by

the respondents, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer so as to decline the

benefit, which was admissible to him under the rules governing the service.

Had the respondents given an appointment to the petitioner after being

selected through proper selection process before relieving him on

30.11.1972, the petitioner would have got the benefit of Rule 3.17 (a). Non-

                                      4 of 7

                                                                 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162506




CM-21356-CWP-2023 in/&                  -5-               2023:PHHC:162506
CWP-14589-2005

grant of appointment on substantive post despite selection is attributable to

the respondents and hence, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the

inaction on the part of the respondents in not giving appointment to the

petitioners for a period of four months despite being selected by the

competent agency.

12. Further, the respondents are wrongly interpreting the Rule 3.17-

A (a) so as to oust the petitioner for the grant of benefit of service, which the

petitioner had rendered on adhoc basis starting from 07.07.1990 till

30.11.1972. Rule 3.17-A(a) is reproduced hereunder for the ready

reference:-

"3.17-A (a) All service interrupted or continuous followed by confirmations shall be treated as qualifying service; the period of break shall be omitted while working out aggregate service."

13. A bare perusal of the said rule would show that all the service

interrupted or continuous followed by confirmation shall he treated as

qualifying service and the period of break is to be omitted while working out

aggregate service. In the present case, if there is a break in service from

01.12.1972 till 09.02.1973, the same is to be ignored once, the petitioner got

confirmed on the same post on which he was working on adhoc basis hence,

Rule 3.17-A(a) covers the case of the petitioner especially, when it is a

conceded position that petitioner was confirmed/regularly appointed on the

same post on which, he discharged his duties on ahoc basis hence, once the

petitioner stood selected for the same post on which he was already working

on adhoc basis since 07.07.1970, merely that the respondents had terminated

his services before giving him appointment on the same post on 10.02.1973,

the break in service cannot be made a ground to decline the benefit of earlier

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162506

CM-21356-CWP-2023 in/& -6- 2023:PHHC:162506 CWP-14589-2005

service rendered by him on adhoc basis from 07.07.1970 till 30.11.1972 to

be treated as qualifying service for computing his pernsionary benefits as the

same is to be ignord as for, interrupted adhoc service, benefit is to be

extended.

14. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that nothing has

come on record that the petitioner was given appointment in pursuance to his

selection qua the same post dated 13.11.1972.

15. On being asked to show as to on what basis the respondents had

given permanent appointment to the petitioner on 10.02.1973, despite being

selected for the post in question on 13.11.1972, learned counsel for the

respondents has not been able to show that the same was not in pursuance to

his selection on 13.11.1972. Under these circumstances, the benefit of

selection, which was only delayed due to the inaction on the part of the

respondents cannot take away the right of the petitioner to claim the benefit

of the earlier adhoc services rendered by the petitioner with the respondent-

department.

16. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon

the judgment of this Court in CWP-9852-1989 titled as Harphul Singh

(Subedar) vs. State of Haryana decided on 10.09.1993 to contend that

where an employee has been appointed substantively, earlier service cannot

be taken into account.

17. The facts and circumstances in Harphul Singh (Subedar)

(supra) cannot be made applicable in the present case. In the case of

Harphul Singh, he was working on adhoc basis in a different department

whereas, his substantive appointment was in different department but in the

6 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162506

CM-21356-CWP-2023 in/& -7- 2023:PHHC:162506 CWP-14589-2005

case of petitioner herein, he was working in a same department, on the same

post on which he was appointed substantively and that too on regular basis.

Hence, the facts and circumstances in Harphul Singh (Subedar) (supra) is

not akin to the case of the petitioner herein.

18. No other argument has been raised.

19 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances noticed

hereinbefore, present petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to grant

the petitioner benefit of service, which the petitioner had rendered on adhoc

basis from 07.07.1970 to 30.11.1972 to be counted as qualifying service for

the grant of pensionary benefits. Let the respondents recalculate the

pensionary benefits of the petitioner for which, he became entitled along

with the arrears and the same be released to him within a period of two

months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

December 18, 2023                    (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti                                         JUDGE
          Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
          Whether reportable :         Yes/No




                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162506

                                       7 of 7