Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 15802 (PNJ)

MALKIAT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB AN DORS

CWP/1160/2002 · 2025-04-04

Aman Chaudhary

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CWP-1160- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 323 Malkiat Singh State of Punjab CORAM: HON Present : AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. respondents to release the ‘after retiral serviced rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. towards pensionary benefits 2. petition in terms of the judgment in and others, vs. State of Haryana and others 29.11.2023, which l to resist by distinguishing the same or cite any paras of Shanno Devi -2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Malkiat Singh Versus f Punjab and Others CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Mr. R.K.Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab. AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) Prayer made in the present petition is for directing the respondents to release the ‘after retiral benefits serviced rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. towards pensionary benefits alongwith interest. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for disposal of the petition in terms of the judgment in Shanno Devi vs. State of Haryana and others, 2013(2) RSJ 426, which was followed in vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP 29.11.2023, which learned State counsel despite by distinguishing the same or cite any Shanno Devi (supra) read thus: -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-1160-2002 (O & M) Date of decision: 04.04.2025 ....Petitioner ...Respondents BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab. Prayer made in the present petition is for directing the benefits’ and to count the ad hoc serviced rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 12.05.1962 to 19.09.1973 alongwith interest. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for disposal of the Shanno Devi vs. State of Haryana 2013(2) RSJ 426, which was followed in Vanita Vashisht , CWP-22249-2020, decided on despite best efforts, was unable by distinguishing the same or cite any contrary law, relevant Vanita Vashisht PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.04.05 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CWP-1160- -2002 “8. I find that the respondent impugned order dated 17.6.2011, Annexure P3, have clearly proceeded on an erroneous premise. Rule 4.23 contained in Punjab Civil Services Rules, 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 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. period 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 Civil Services Rules. 9. While taking a view that the entire service interrupted or continuous followed by confirmation is to be treated as qualifying service for pension and the period of break is to be omitted while working out the aggregate service, I would draw support from a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Kesho Ram v. State of Haryana and others, 2006(6) SLR 334, wherein it was terms: "......The matter is no longer res Rule 3.17 which confined the qualifying service only to the period of regular service was struck down by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab, 1988(3) PLR 223. Rule 3.17, (ii) as applicable in the State of Punjab had specifically provided that the period of service in work charge establishment was not to be taken into account for determining qualifying service of an employee. The afore mentioned rule was declared as ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution. The view of the Full Bench is discernible from para 19 of the judgement which reads as under: "..... Once the services of a work charged employee have been regularised, there app logic to deprive him of the pensionary benefits as are available to other public servants under rule 3.17 of the Rules. Equal protection of laws must mean the -2- I find that the respondent-authorities while passing the impugned order dated 17.6.2011, Annexure P3, have clearly proceeded on an erroneous premise. Rule 4.23 contained in es Rules, 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 petitioner 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 period 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 eriod of break. Such claim of the petitioner stands squarely covered in the light of Rule 3.17-A of Punjab While taking a view that the entire service interrupted or continuous followed by confirmation is to be treated as ng service for pension and the period of break is to be omitted while working out the aggregate service, I would draw support from a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Kesho Ram v. State of Haryana and others, 2006(6) SLR 334, wherein it was held in the following "......The matter is no longer res-integra as un-amended Rule 3.17 which confined the qualifying service only to the period of regular service was struck down by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kesar Chand v. State f Punjab, 1988(3) PLR 223. Rule 3.17, (ii) as applicable in the State of Punjab had specifically provided that the period of service in work charge establishment was not to be taken into account for determining qualifying service of an employee. The mentioned rule was declared as ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution. The view of the Full Bench is discernible from para 19 of the judgement "..... Once the services of a work charged employee have been regularised, there appears to be hardly any logic to deprive him of the pensionary benefits as are available to other public servants under rule 3.17 of the Rules. Equal protection of laws must mean the PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.04.05 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CWP-1160- -2002 protection of equal laws for all persons similarly situated. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness because a provision which is arbitrary involves the negation of equality. Even the temporary or officiating service under the State Government has to be reckoned for determining the qualifying service. It looks to be illogical that the period of service spent by an employee in a work charged establishment before his regularisation has not been taken into consideration for determining his qualifying service. The classification which is sought to be made among Government servants who are eligible for pension and those who started as work charged employees and their services regularised subsequently, and the others is not based on any intelligible criteria and, therefore, is not sustainable at law. After the services of a work charged empl have been regularized, he is a public servant like any other servant. To deprive him of the pension is not only unjust and inequitable but is hit by the vice of arbitrariness, and for these reasons the provisions of sub rule (ii) of rule 3.17 of the R down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution." We further find that the afore the Full Bench has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. and others, 2005(4) S.C.T. 302: 2005(5) SLR 793 been held that the services rendered by a daily wager followed by regularisation of his service deserved be considered as qualifying service for the purposes of pension and other retiral benefits. The view taken by this Court has lead to addition of Rule 3.17(A) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II (as applicable to Haryana) which provides that all service interrupted or continuous followed by confirmation shall be trea qualifying service and the period of break are to be omitted while working out the aggregate service. Accordingly we are of the considered view that this petition deserves to be allowed." 10. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 17.6.2011, Annexure P3, is set aside. It is directed that the period of service rendered by the petitioner on adhoc basis from 21.2.1974 to 5.8.1978 would also be counted towards qualifying service for pension and gratuity. Let such exercise of re -3- protection of equal laws for all persons similarly ikes at arbitrariness because a provision which is arbitrary involves the negation of equality. Even the temporary or officiating service under the State Government has to be reckoned for determining the qualifying service. It looks to be e period of service spent by an employee in a work charged establishment before his regularisation has not been taken into consideration for determining his qualifying service. The classification which is sought to be made among Government eligible for pension and those who started as work charged employees and their services regularised subsequently, and the others is not based on any intelligible criteria and, therefore, is not sustainable at law. After the services of a work charged employee have been regularized, he is a public servant like any other servant. To deprive him of the pension is not only unjust and inequitable but is hit by the vice of arbitrariness, and for these reasons the provisions of sub rule (ii) of rule 3.17 of the Rules have to be struck down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution." We further find that the afore-mentioned view taken by the Full Bench has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mangat Ram v. Haryana Nigam Ltd. and others, 2005(4) S.C.T. 302: 2005(5) SLR 793, wherein again it has been held that the services rendered by a daily wager followed by regularisation of his service deserved be considered as qualifying service for the purposes of her retiral benefits. The view taken by this Court has lead to addition of Rule 3.17(A) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II (as applicable to Haryana) which provides that all service interrupted or continuous followed by confirmation shall be treated as qualifying service and the period of break are to be omitted while working out the aggregate service. Accordingly we are of the considered view that this petition deserves to be allowed." For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 17.6.2011, Annexure P3, is set aside. It is directed that the period of service rendered by the petitioner on adhoc basis from 21.2.1974 to 5.8.1978 would also be counted towards qualifying service for pension and h exercise of re-computation of aggregate PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.04.05 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CWP-1160- 3. terms of Shanno Devi 04.04.2025 parveen kumar Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable -2002 qualifying service for pension and gratuity be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and the requisite benefits flowing thereupon be released to the peti weeks thereafter. 11. Petition allowed in the aforesaid terms. Petition allowed.” In wake of the above, the present petition is disposed of in Shanno Devi (supra). Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No -4- qualifying service for pension and gratuity be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and the requisite benefits flowing thereupon be released to the petitioner within a period of four Petition allowed in the aforesaid terms. In wake of the above, the present petition is disposed of in (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.04.05 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.