Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tejinder Singh Virdi vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 16 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005994
CWP-11326-2018 (O&M) - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
222
CWP-11326-2018 (O&M)
Date of decision: 16.01.2025
Tejinder Singh Virdi
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and Others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Sehajbir Singh Aulakh, AAG Punjab
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
1. The prayer made in the present petition is to count the period of
training of 2 years, towards qualifying service for calculation of retiral benefits
after fixation of pay, which was rejected by passing a non-speaking order, as no
reasons had been assigned therein, which has been made subject matter herein.
2. Reliance had been placed on the judgment passed by this Court in
R.S. Dhull vs. State of Haryana and Another, CWP-14360-2008, decided on
30.11.2016, wherein the training period of the petitioner therein had been directed
to be taken into account for the purpose as sought by him, however, the military
service rendered during emergency, was not included against which LPA-2016-
2019 had been filed, which now stands allowed vide judgment dated 09.04.2024,
which learned State counsel has not been able to controvert the factual position
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005994
CWP-11326-2018 (O&M) - 2-
and draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgments or cite any
contrary law. Relevant extract of R.S. Dhull (supra) read thus:
" .... 3. Whether the training period of the petitioner
as Tehsildar from 26.9.1974 to 8.2.1978 is to be computed
for the purpose of grant of pension and other retiral
benefits?
The appointment letter of the petitioner is dated
13.9.1974, whereby he was accepted as Class A Tehsildar
candidate on the basis of Haryana Civil Services Executive
Branch and other Services Examination 1972-73. Appointment
letter is reproduced as under:-
The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana, is
pleased to accept Sarvshri Raj Kumar Aggarwal, Amar Nath,
Icchpujani, Ashok Kumar Vashishtha, Kamal Gupta, Hardhul
Singh Bholle, Randhir Singh Dhull and Nepal Singh Tanwar,
as "A" Class Tehsildar Candidate. The acceptance of Sarvshri
Ashok Kumar Vashistha and Hardhul Singh Bhole is subject to
verification of their character and antcedents.
2. The inter-se-seniority of the above candidates will be
communicated to them later.
3. The arrangements for their training will be made by the
commissioner Ambala and Hissar Division, who are being
asked to communicate the programme of training to them.
They are allotted to the Commissioners, Ambala and Hissar
Division, for training as under:-
Commissioner Ambala Divn. Commissioner Hissar Divn
1. Shri Raj Kumar Aggarwal 1. Shri Kamal Kumar Gupta
2. Shri Amar Nath Inchhpunjani 2. Shri Hardhul Singh Bhole
3. Shri Randhir Singh 3. Shri Ashok Kumar Vasishta
4. Shri Nepal Singh Tanwar
Chandigarh
4. The terms and conditions of their service training, passing of
departmental examination, probation etc. will be governed by
the Punjab Tehsildari Rules, 1932 and the Financial
Commissioner's Standing Order No.12 as amended from time
to time.
5. During the period of their training they shall draw pay at the
rate of the minimum of the time scale of the post of Tehsildar
of Rs.350-25-500-30-650/30- 800 vis. Rs.350/- P.M.
6. They are requested to intimate their Home Districts and the
districts in which they have property to the Commissioner of
the Divisions to whom they have been allotted for imparting
training and this department.
7. The receipt of this communication may please be
acknowledged.
The above noted letter clearly shows that on the basis of
examination conducted by the Haryana Civil Services
Executive Branch and other Services Examination 1972-73, the
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005994
CWP-11326-2018 (O&M) - 3-
petitioner was selected as Tehsildar in the Ex-servicemen
category and he was accepted by the Financial Commissioner
as "A" Class Tehsildar candidate. He was required to undergo
service training and pass the departmental examination and
probation and his services were governed by Punjab Tehsildari
Rules, 1932 and Financial Commissioner standing order
No.12. He was to draw the pay at the rate of minimum of the
time scale of the post of Tehsildar, which means that as per the
appointment letter, the petitioner had joined the Government
service and came under the control of the Government. Before
actually being posted as a Tehsildar, he was require to undergo
some service training which included his working as Kanungo
and Naib Tehsildar and pass the departmental examination and
clear probation etc. He was paid the salary of the Tehsildar
though at the minimum of time scale. In this situation, the
petitioner was drawing the salary from the State also. Now, the
question would arise whether the period of service training is
to be excluded while computing service of the petitioner under
the Government? The standing order No.12 of 1909 shows that
"A" class candidate was required to be declared qualified
within two years of acceptance to undergo revenue training for
one year and obtain a Kanungo's certificate of efficiency from
the Director of Land Records. After receipt of such training
and after obtaining such certificate, he was to serve as a Naib
Tehsildar with approval for two years either officiating or in an
honorary capacity. He was also required to pass Tehsildar's
examination within two years of acceptance. It goes to show
that before being actually posted as Tehsildar, the petitioner
was required to undergo some revenue training and obtain
certificate of efficiency as Kanungo and was also required to
serve as Naib Tehsildar. Service of Kanungo and Naib
Tehsildar is admittedly under the Government. During the
service of the petitioner as Tehsildar, he was later on governed
by Punjab Civil Service Rules. The training of the petitioner
and clearing of the departmental examination and probation
period was followed by confirmation of the petitioner as a
Tehsildar. One failed to understand how the period of training
is to be excluded from the service for the purpose of grant of
service benefits? Now, when the daily wage workers, work
charge service or temporary and ad hoc service followed by
confirmation is computed as qualifying for the purpose of
pension, then one failed to understand why the service during
the training period which is on the basis of regular appointment
letter followed by regular posting is to be excluded from the
service period of an employee. It also comes out that no fresh
appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 8.2.1978
when he completed the training to indicate that it was a fresh
appointment on 8.2.1978. It just happened that the petitioner
successfully completed the training and he was given his
posting as a Tehsildar."
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005994
CWP-11326-2018 (O&M) - 4-
3. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of in terms of
R.S. Dhull (supra).
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
16.01.2025
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
4 of 4
