Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prithvi Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 9 August, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:102749
CWP-13428-202
2020 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
210
CWP-13428-2020 (O&M)
.2024
Date of decision: 09.08.2024
Prithvi Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and Others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present : Mr. Ravinder Malik,, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Tapan Kumar, DAG, Haryana.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer made in the present petition is for granting benefit of ad
ad-hoc
hoc
services rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 20.04.1973 to 11.09.1978 for pensionary
and other retiral benefits.
benefits
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment passed by
this Court in Kashmiri Devi vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP-3295-2011,
2011,
decided on 14.02.2017,
14.02.2017 involving the identical issue regarding the same
department, against which there is no LPA filed and which covers his case on all
fours. Relevant paras whereof read thus:
"The
The question before this Court is as to whether two
spells of the ad hoc service rendered by the husband of the
petitioner, as reproduced above, which are about 10 years 6
months and 20 days, are to be computed as a period qualifying
for the pensionary service
vice or not?
Rule 3.17A of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume
II, Chapter III, which deals with the service qualifying for
pension, is reproduced as under:
under:-
3.17-A.
A. (a) All service interrupted or continuous followed by
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:102749
CWP-13428-202
2020 (O&M) -2-
confirmation shall be treated aass qualifying service; the period
of break shall be omitted while working out aggregate service.
(b) Extraordinary leave counted towards increments under rule
4.9 (b) (ii) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume
Volume-I,
I, Part-I,
Part
will be accounted towards service qqualifying for pension.
(c) Periods of suspension, dismissal, removal, compulsory
retirement followed by reinstatement will count for pension to
the extent permissible under rule 4.17 of Punjab Civil Services
Rules Volume-II II read with rule 7.3 of the Punja Punjabb Civil
Services Rules, Volume-I, I, Part
Part-I.
(d) Resignation from the public service or dismissal or removal
from it for misconduct, insolvency, inefficiency, not due to
age, or failure to pass a prescribed examination will entail
forfeiture of past service in terms of rule 4.19 (a) of Punjab
Civil Service Rules Volume--II.
(e) An interruption in the service of a Government employee
caused by wilful absence from duty and unauthorized absence
without leave will as hitherto entail forfeiture of past service.
[Explanation.-- The willful refusal to perform duties by a
Government employee by any means including pen down
strike shall be deemed to be willful absence from duty.]2
(f) Employees retiring from Government service without
confirmation (as temporary employe
employees)
es) in any post on or after
5 February, 1969 will be entitled to invalid/ retiring/
superannuation pension and death
death-cum-retirement
retirement gratuity on
the same basis as admissible to permanent employees. In case
of death of temporary employee in service his famil
family
y will also
be entitled to similar benefits as are admissible to the families
of permanent employees. This concession will, however, not
apply to:
(i) Persons paid from contingencies; provided that half of the
period of service of such persons paid from ccontingencies
ontingencies
rendered from 1st January, 1973 onwards for which authentic
records of service is available will count as qualifying service
subject to the following conditions:
conditions:-
(a) Service paid from contingencies should have been in a job
involving whole timeime employment and not part time for a
portion of day,
(b) Service paid from contingencies should be in a type of
work or job for which regular post should have been
sanctioned e.g. Malis, Chowkidars, Khalasis etc.
(c) The service should have been such ffor
or which the payment is
made either on monthly or daily rates computed and paid on a
monthly basis and which though not analogous to the regular
scale of pay should bear some relations in the matter of pay to
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:102749
CWP-13428-202
2020 (O&M) -3-
those being paid for similar jobs being perform
performed
ed by staff in
regular establishments; and
(d) The service paid from contingencies should have been
continuous and followed by absorption in regular employment
without a break.
Note.─ ─ While bringing contingent paid employee to the regular
establishment an entry for verification of contingent service
should be made at the appropriate place in his service book,
preferably before making any entry regarding his regular
service in the following manner:
manner:-
"Service from __________ to ___________ paid out of
contingencies verified from acquittance rolls and office copies
of contingent bills". This entry should be signed by the Head of
Office with date.
(ii) [Deleted].
(iii) Casual Labour;
(iv) Contract Officer; and
[(v) Persons born on Contributory Provident Fund
Establishment.]
[(g) The entire service rendered by an employee as work
charged shall be reckoned towards retirement benefits
provided─
(i) such service is followed by regul
regular employment;
(ii) there is no interruption in the two or more spells of service
or the interruptions fall within condonable limits; and
(iii) such service is a whole time employment and not part
part-time
time
or portion of day.]
Under this Rule all the interr
interrupted
upted or continuous service
followed by confirmation shall be treated as qualifying service
for pensionary benefits. The period of break shall be omitted
while working out the aggregate service.
Rule 4.23, which falls under the Chapter of Special
Additions to Service Qualifying for Superannuation Pension
and which deals with condonation of breaks and deficiencies in
service is reproduced below:
below:-
4.23 Interruption in service (either between two sp spells
ells of
permanent, or temporary service or between a spell of
temporary service and permanent service or vice versa) in the
case of an officer retiring on or after the 5th January, 1961,
may be condoned, subject to the following conditions,
namely:-
(1) Thehe interruption should have been caused by reasons
beyond the control of Government employee concerned.
(2) Service preceding the interruption should not be less than
five years' duration. In cases where there are two or more
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:102749
CWP-13428-202
2020 (O&M) -4-
interruptions, the total service,
ice, pensionary benefits in respect of
which shall be lost if the interruption are not condoned should
not be less than five years.
(3) The interruption should not be of more than one years
duration. In cases where there are two or more interruptions,
the total period of all interruptions to be condoned should not
exceed one year.
A perusal of Rule 4.23 shows that it primarily deals with
condonation of interruptions in two spells of permanent and
temporary service, which follows that in case the interrup
interruption
tion
is less than one year only then the said period can be condoned
and ignoring that interruption the said gap period is also to be
treated as qualifying for pension. It is different from counting
the ad hoc service itself. Rule 3.17A shows that all serv services
ices
interrupted or continuous followed by confirmation are to be
treated as qualifying service. While counting the said period,
the break shall be omitted while working out the aggregate
service. It means that if the break is more than one year and is
not condoned under Rule 4.23, same has to be excluded while
computing aggregate service. A harmonious reading of both
the provisions shows that in case the gap of ad hoc service and
regular service is less than one year, the same can be condoned
and even that interrupted period can be computed as qualifying
service for the pension. If the gap is more than one year and is
not condonable under Rule 4.23 then that period of interruption
has to be excluded while computing the aggregate service
qualified for pension.n. It will amount to be going too far to
conclude as done by the State that if the interruption is more
than one year the entire ad hoc service is to excluded while
computing the qualifying service for pension. This was exactly
done by the State while passinging the impugned order/ letter.
The matter was considered by a coordinate bench of this
Court in Shanno Devi vs. State of Haryana and others, 2013 (2)
PLR 773, wherein, while considering the said two Rules, it was
observed as under:-
7. A perusal of the impugned order dated 17.6.2011, Annexure
P3, would reveal that the claim of the petitioner has been
rejected in the light of Rule 4.23 of Punjab Civil Services
Rules, Vol.II holding that interruption in service between two
spells can be condoned if the se service
rvice prior to interruption is not
less than five years and interruption in service between two
spells should not be more than one year's duration. In the light
of Rule 4.23, a view has been taken that since the adhoc
service of the petitioner prior to intinterruption
erruption is less than five
years and the interruption itself between the two spells of
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:102749
CWP-13428-202
2020 (O&M) -5-
service is more than one year, accordingly, the service rendered
by the petitioner on adhoc basis for the period 21.2.1974 to
5.8.1978 cannot be considered as qualifyin
qualifying
g service for the
purposes of pension and gratuity.
8. I find that the respondent
respondent-authorities
authorities while passing the
impugned order dated 17.6.2011, Annexure P3, have clearly
proceeded on an erroneous premise. Rule 4.23 contained in
Punjab Civil Services RulesRules,, Chapter IV, Vol.II regulates
Condonation of Interruptions and Deficiencies. The
interruption in service as regards the petitioner between the
spell of adhoc service and permanent service was clearly not
condonable as the adhoc service rendered by the pet petitioner
itioner
preceding the interruption was less than five years duration and
such interruption itself was more than a period of one year. Be
that as it may, the claim of the petitioner was not as regards
condonation of such interruption in service i.e. the per period
iod
between the initial adhoc service and followed by permanent
regular service. Rather the claim of the petitioner was to count
the adhoc service rendered by her for the period 21.2.1974 to
5.8.1978 towards qualifying service and by omitting the period
of break. Such claim of the petitioner stands squarely covered
in the light of Rule 3.17-A A of Punjab Civil Services Rules.
Undoubtedly, there was no fault on the part of husband
of the petitioner because his earlier ad hoc services were
terminated due to thee abolition of the post. Therefore, he is not
to be blamed for the same.
As a result of the foregoing discussion, the petition is
allowed. Ad hoc service of husband of the petitioner rendered
as Sub Inspector from 12.5.1967 to 24.6.1972 and from
9.4.19733 to 11.9.1978, only is to be computed as qualifying
service for the pension. Two spells of gap between ad hoc
service and permanent service are to be excluded while
computing qualifying service and only the said period of
service shall be computed as qual qualifying
ifying for the pension.
Consequently, the impugned order dated 23.7.2008 (Annexure
P2) and the impugned letter dated 9.9.2010 (Annexure P3) are
hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to re re-calculate
calculate the
retiral and pensionary benefits accordingly and rel release
ease the
same to the petitioner within three months from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order.
So far as interest on the previous benefits released to her
without computing the ad hoc service of husband of the
petitioner is concerned, th thee petitioner shall be entitled to
interest @ 9% per annum on the gratuity and commuted value
of pension, starting three months from the date of death of her
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:102749
CWP-13428-202
2020 (O&M) -6-
husband i.e. 1.4.2009 till the date of payment. So far as
additional payment after computing the ar arrears
rears is concerned,
the same shall be released with interest @ 9% per annum
starting three months from the date of retirement of husband of
the petitioner till the date of payment.
payment."
3. Learned State counsel despite his best efforts was unable to
controvert the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the
aforementioned judgment or cite any contrary law.
4. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of, in terms
of the judgment passed in Kashmiri Devi (supra)
(supra).
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
09.08.2024
ashok
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
6 of 6
