STATE OF HARYANA Vs. DALEL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Haryana and its officers have filed the instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgment dated 30.9.2010 rendered by the Single Judge holding that the case of the petitioner-respondent ought to have been considered sympathetically for grant of pensionary benefits in view of the fact that he has served the State of Haryana for 25 years and 10 months and for a period of 3 years from 1974 to 1977. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to regularise the services of the petitioner-respondent in terms of policy dated 5.11.1999 (P-11). A further direction has been issued to the appellants to calculate and disburse pensionary LPA No. 1865 of 2011 (O&M) benefits of the petitioner-respondent within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

(2.) The undisputed facts of the case are that on 12.12.1974 the petitioner-respondent submitted an application before the Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Pundri. Along with the application, he also submitted attested copies of the Matriculation certificate and training certificate obtained from the Patwar School for the period 1.9.1968 to 28.2.1969. On 18.12.1974, the petitioner-respondent was appointed as a Patwari in the pay scale of Rs. 110-225 against a vacant post. Later on it was discovered that the petitioner-respondent had failed in Paper No. 4 of Patwari. On 18.7.1970, the Director, Panchayats, Haryana dispensed with the services of the petitioner-respondent holding that his appointment could not be regularised by giving relaxation in the said paper.

(3.) On 20.8.1979, the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra, again appointed the petitioner-respondent as a Patwari in Kaithal Block on ad hoc basis. However, the order of appointment was not sent to the Director, Panchayats for approval. Thereafter the petitioner-respondent continued to serve the State of Haryana. On 11.3.2005, the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, passed an order terminating the services of the petitioner-respondent by observing that he has obtained the appointment illegally in collusion with the employees of the office by concealing the fact that he has failed in Paper No. 4 and could not have been appointed as Patwari (P-9). However, the said order was not given effect to upto 30.6.2005 in view of the fact that the petitioner-respondent had filed CWP No. 3847 of 2005 and his termination was stayed. Later on the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ petition by challenging the termination order dated 11.3.2005.