SUCHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HARYANA, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT DEPARTMENT, CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in this case is the tenability of contention that service as a Patwari in the Government service, which stood altered as unpaid Patwari on account of financial stringency and emergecny being the juniormost ought to be considered for computation for total service period. The facts of the case that give rise to this writ petition are that he had been employed as a Patwari with the Government in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala doing consolidation and settlement work. His initial appointment was on 15.08.1958 and he was reverted as an unpaid Patwari on 26.10.1965 for the reasons referred to above. Later, he was appointed as a regular Patwari by the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala w.e.f. 06.08.1975 at the Panchayat Samiti, Naraingarh. Consequent of provincialization of service of Panchayat Samitis and absorption in Haryana Government, he had been treated as Government employee from the year 1983. The issue in this case is that whether the break in service from the year 1965 till he was appointed to the Panchayat Samiti could be condoned and the earlier service as a Patwari from 1958 to 1965 could be admitted to the pension scheme. The second question is really a corolloary, namely, whether the appointment at the Panchayat Samiti as a Patwari could be treated as Government service although later provincialized. In order to secure the benefit of the Punjab Civil Services Rules 4.21 that allows for a condonation of interruption of service under certain circumstances, the contention by the respondent is that the petitioner's claim will have to be rejected only for the reason that the benefit of Rule 4.21 will apply only in cases where the person rejoins Government service but in this case, since he had been appointed as an employee of the Panchayat Samiti, the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of such consideration.

(2.) The Rule 4.21 that provides for a circumstances where the past service could not be forfeited would require to reproduced:-

(3.) It is an admitted case that the break in service of 7 years 2 months and 11 days had occasioned when the petitioner was treated as an unpaid candidate on account of completion of consolidation work and the financial stringency and declaration of emergency. The Rule 4.21 refers to the exception to the forfeiture of past service to abolition of posts or loss of appointment due to reduction in establishment. That was precisely what has happened in this case on the consolidation work having been completed and the application of financial stringency that required the juniormost staff to be treated as an unpaid Patwari and removed from service. This rule will always be applicable in a case where a person is re-admitted to Government service. The contention is that the person was not appointed into Government service but he has been appointed as a Patwari in Panchayat Samiti. If there had been no provincialization of service with the Samiti, the application of Rule 4.21 does not arise at all. But if an amendment had been brought to the Act of 1961 and a notification had been issued allowing for provincialization of said service then it must be carried to its logical end that even the appointment of a person as a Patwari in Panchayat Samiti must be taken to be a Government service and therefore, the benefit of Rule 4.21 should certainly be applied. Even a notification issued by the Government on 12/19.08.1968 providing for condonation of break in service of Government employee, who become surplus staff due to emergency was actually considering a situation of person, who is not appointed in the parent department but persons, who were employed in departments other than parent department. In effect, it was meant to benefit of class of person irrespective of whether a person was employed in the very same department or not. Rule 4.21 that provides for exception to the break in service must be construed to the benefit of the civil servant and if the service with Panchayat Samiti had later been absorbed into Government service then the initial appointment itself must be taken only as a Government service and the entire period of break in service that had been occasioned by abolition of the post must be condoned and the previous service rendered from 15.08.1958 to 26.10.1965 would also be added. If by such reckoning, the petitioner's service would count as pensionable service, the petitioner would also be entitled to grant pension. If the petitioner had been contributing to any provident fund and any amount had been paid to the petitioner at the time of his retirement, the same is liable for refund with interest @12% and adjusted against the petitioner's entitlement towards arrears of pension. The calculation shall be made and released to the petitioner with interest @12% from the date when he retired till the date of payment. The entire exercise shall be done within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.