R.C. VERMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri R.C. Verma petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking relief that the impugned order Annexure P-10 dated 19.7.1993 be quashed and directions be given to the respondents to count the past service rendered by the petitioner under the Directorate of Education, Delhi Administration, Delhi from 22.8.1962 to 23.7.1964 for the purpose of pension etc.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is that initially he was appointed to the post of Post Graduate Teacher in the Directorate of Education, Delhi Administration, Delhi on 22.8.1962 in the scale of Rs. 250-470 vide appointment letter dated 22.8.1962. Subsequently, in response to the advertisement given by the Punjab Public Service Commission, the petitioner applied for the post of a Lecturer in Chemistry in the Directorate of Education, Punjab through proper channel. He was selected and he joined his new assignment in the Government College, Hisar on 23.7.1964. The petitioner rendered service in the Delhi Administration from 22.8.1962 to 23.7.1964. With the reorganisation of the erstwhile State of Punjab the petitioner was allocated to the State of Haryana. After serving in the Education Department of the Haryana up to 31.8.1969, the petitioner was selected as Assistant Chemist in the Industries Department, Haryana on which post he joined on 2.9.1969 and he was confirmed w.e.f. 3.9.1969 vide office order dated 7.3.1972. He retired on 31.5.1993. It is alleged by the petitioner that the Government of India, inter alia, decided in consultation with the State Governments vide letter dated 9.10.1986 that the liability for pension including the gratuity would be borne in full by the Central or State Government to which the government servant permanently belongs at the time of his retirement. It was further provided that no recovery of proportionate pension will be made from the Central/State Government under whom he had served. The system of allocation of pension between the Central and State Government which was previously in vogue had been dispensed with and this decision came into force w.e.f. 1.4.1987. The petitioner made a representation dated 4.12.1991 and submitted that under the Government of India's orders, liability for pension is to be borne by the Haryana Government with regard to the period when the petitioner served under the Delhi Administration. Respondent No. 2 made a reference to respondent No. 1, but respondent No. 1 expressed his inability to agree with the proposal sent by respondent No. 2. The case of the petitioner now is, that due to non-counting of the service rendered by the petitioner under the Delhi Administration for the period from 22.8.1962 to 23.7.1964 i.e. 1 year and 11 months, there is loss in pension and gratuity. Hence the present writ petition.

(3.) Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. They have filed the reply and denied the allegations. According to the respondents, Rule 3 of the Haryana Government (Finance Department) Notification dated 31.12.1982 as amended vide Rule 3.17, runs as follows :