RSA-1823-1997 (O&M) --1-- 121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1823-1997 (O&M) Decided on:-13.07.2026 State of Punjab and others ….Appellants.. vs. Hardial Singh ….Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Arun Jindal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. None for the respondent. ***** HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral) 1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgments and decrees dated 01.08.1995 and 02.12.1996 passed by both the Courts, whereby, the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction filed at the instance of respondent-plaintiff, was decreed in his favour and appeal filed by the appellants-defendants was dismissed. 2. Briefly stating, the respondent-plaintiff served in schools under the District Board from 31.08.1953 to 30.09.1957. After the Punjab Government took over the District Board schools on 01.10.1957, the plaintiff became a government employee with an assurance that his previous service would be counted for all service benefits. He retired on 30.06.1986 as Head Master from Government High School Dharampura, but while settling his retirement benefits, the defendants failed to consider his District SONIKA 2026.07.17 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-1823-1997 (O&M) --2-- Board service. Consequently, the plaintiff was paid only partial retirement benefits based on his service rendered under the Punjab Government and was denied the arrears of pension, gratuity, leave encashment, General Provident Fund (GPF); Head Master grade benefits w.e.f. for 12.04.1986 to 30.06.1986, medical allowances w.e.f 01.07.1986 to 31.01.1989 and other consequential benefits. Despite repeated demands, the appellants-defendants failed to release these benefits, compelling the plaintiff to file civil suit along with a claim for interest at 18% per annum. 2.1 Upon notice of the suit, the appellants-defendants appeared and filed written statements while admitting the fact that the respondent-plaintiff served in various schools under the then District Board from 31.08.1953 to 30.09.1957, however, disputed his right to claim benefits of the service rendered for the said period. It was pleaded that arrears of the Head Master grade w.e.f. 12.04.1986 to 30.06.1986 of the respondent-plaintiff become time barred as the same was not claimed well in time and that he was also not entitled for medical allowances having not applied for the same. It was further pleaded that the respondent-plaintiff cannot get the benefit of the service rendered by him in the District Board School towards the retirement benefits and he was not entitled to count his previous service in the District Board w.e.f. 31.08.1953 to 30.09.1957. Replication to the written statement was filed while denying the stand taken by the appellants-defendants. From the pleadings of the parties, the ld. trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable? OPD. SONIKA 2026.07.17 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-1823-1997 (O&M) --3-- 4. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD. 5. Relief.” 3. Vide judgment and decree dated 01.08.1995, the ld. trial Court decreed the suit in favour of respondent-plaintiff while holding that previous service of the plaintiff in the District Board is to be counted while granting him the retirement benefits alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred the First Appeal, however, the same also came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 02.12.1996 thereby affirming the findings recorded by the ld. trial Court. However, the direction awarding interest at the rate of 12% per annum was modified by setting aside the same, with a further direction that in the event the pensionary benefits were not released within six months from the date of the judgment, the amount so withheld would carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Hence the present second appeal. 5. Assailing the aforementioned judgments and decrees dated 01.08.1995 and 02.12.1996, learned State counsel submits that both the Courts below erred in granting the benefits of the ad hoc service rendered by the respondent w.e.f. 31.08.1953 to 30.09.1957 in the District Board, the same being non-qualifying service as per Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2 which were issued while getting his case prepared for the pension before his retirement and that the same amounted to estoppel on the part of respondent. He further submits that the respondent never contributed towards provident fund during the aforementioned period and thus, is not entitled for the benefits of the disputed period of service. In support he places reliance upon the Punjab Educational Service (Provincialized Cadre) Class III Rules 1961 (Ex-D-3) SONIKA 2026.07.17 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-1823-1997 (O&M) --4-- Rule 13(2) which reads as under: “A member of the service not above the age of thirty years on the date mentioned in sub rule (1) shall be entitled to pensionary benefits under the Punjab Civil Services Rules or such other rules as many from time to time be framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the service rendered by him under local authority in permanent capacity shall be counted for pension from the date he subscribed to the Contributed Provident Fund maintained by the local authority subject to the condition the he credits the total amount contributed towards his fund by the local authority also with interest accrued thereon up to the date of provincialisation to the state revenues. The balance left in the Contributory Fund under the local authority shall be transferred to his credit in the Punjab General Provident Fund.” Ld. counsel thus prays for setting aside of the judgments passed by both the Court below. 6. No one has chosen to appear on behalf of the respondent. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and gone through the paper book, I am unable to find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. 8. It is an admitted fact that the respondent-plaintiff rendered service in various schools under the District Board from 31.08.1953 to 30.09.1957 and these schools were subsequently taken over by the Punjab Government, whereupon the respondent-plaintiff became a government employee. As regards the claim of the respondent–plaintiff to the Head Master's grade for the period from 12.04.1986 to 30.06.1986, the same no longer survives as the said claim has already been accepted and the consequential payment has since been released as has been recorded by the ld. First Appellate Court. Insofar as the claim for medical allowance is concerned, the plaintiff-respondent himself having never applied for the same, both the Courts below have rightly declined the said relief. SONIKA 2026.07.17 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-1823-1997 (O&M) --5-- 9. With regard to the objection raised by the appellants that the respondent–plaintiff was not entitled to the General Provident Fund (GPF) amount on account of non-contribution during his service under the District Board, and their subsequent reliance on Rule 13(2) of the Punjab Educational Service (Provincialized Cadre) Class III Rules, 1961 (Ex.D-3) in support of the same, does not merit acceptance. Admittedly, the service in dispute pertains to the period from 31.08.1953 to 30.09.1957, whereas the Punjab Educational Service (Provincialized Cadre) Class III Rules, 1961 came into force much thereafter. There is nothing on record to indicate that, during the respondent–plaintiff's tenure under the District Board, there existed any statutory provision requiring him to subscribe to a Contributory Provident Fund as a condition precedent for reckoning his past service towards pension. On the contrary, the testimony of Surinder Singh (DW-1) unequivocally establishes that no deductions towards the General Provident Fund or Contributory Provident Fund were ever effected from the respondent–plaintiff's salary during the said period. Significantly, Rule 13(2) does not provide that non-subscription to the Contributory Provident Fund would result in forfeiture of the benefit of counting past service for pensionary purposes. In the absence of any such disabling consequence, the said provision cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to defeat the respondent–plaintiff's legitimate pensionary entitlement. 10. Equally devoid of merit is the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants that the respondent–plaintiff was disentitled to the claimed benefits on the ground that he had rendered service in an ad hoc capacity especially in light of the settled legal position that even ad hoc services of the deceased are to be taken into consideration for determining pensionary SONIKA 2026.07.17 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-1823-1997 (O&M) --6-- benefits. In support reliance is placed on the judgment of Bimla Devi v. State of Haryana reported as 1992 (2) SCT 12. Relevant portion of the same is reproduced hereinunder: “……..In Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab, SLR 1988(5) Punjab & Haryana 27, the Full Bench of this Court has held that the service rendered on a workcharge basis has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the pensionary rights of an employee. The service on ad hoc basis cannot be any process of law or logic be at a lower pedestal than the service on work-charged basis. I am, therefore, of the view that the ad hoc service had to be taken into consideration before determining the pensionary rights or the employee of his family.” 9. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion, finding no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below which are based upon proper appreciation of pleadings, the evidence available on record and there being no misreading or misinterpretation thereof been pointed out specifically; the impugned judgments and decrees call for no interference. Resultantly, the present appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed. 10. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 13.07.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) sonika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/ No SONIKA 2026.07.17 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document