STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RACHHITA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal filed by the State of Haryana under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 4.9.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition. According to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge the petitioner- State of Haryana has been asked to reckon the service from 30.10.1967 to 11.10.1986 as qualifying service for the purposes of pension and other retiral benefits. THE petitioner-respondent no.1 has rendered service during the aforesaid period in a government aided school. It is further pertinent to mention that the petitioner- respondent no.1 thereafter applied for the post of JBT teacher under the Haryana Government where she was selected and appointed as such on six month basis vide order dated 10.10.1986 and her services were also regularised on 1.1.1999. She retired from service on 31.3.2006 and her representation for grant of benefits of service rendered by her from 30.10.1967 to 11.10.1986 was rejected. Moreover, reliance was placed before the learned Single Judge on the rules known as Haryana Aided School (Pension and Contributory Provident Fund) Rules, 1999 (for brevity ' the 1999 Rules') and the instructions dated 7.1.2002. According to the aforesaid instructions the previous service of an employe of autonomous body or of State Government is required to be reckoned for the purposes of pension. For the relief granted by the learned Single Judge reliance has been placed on the judgments in the cases of CWP No. 16817 of 2007 Vijay Singh v. State of Haryana and others decided on 22.7.2009; Harnandan Singh v. State of Punjab and others 2007(2) RSJ 437; Charan Singh v. State of Punjab and others 2006(6) SLR 624 ; Union of India and other v. Jawahar Lal Sharma 2003(3) RSJ 672 and Chander Sain v. State of H aryana and o thers AIR 1994 SC 972.

(2.) WE have asked the learned State Counsel to show how the proposition laid down in the aforesaid judgements would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. She has not been able to either distinguish the judgements or point out anything in the 1999 rules or in the instructions dated 7.1.2002 which be taken as contrary to the view of the learned Single Judge. The appeal does not warrant admission and is wholly mis-conceived. Dismissed.