RAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of the order dated 18.01.2010 (Annexure P-6) vide which claim of the petitioner for adding the experience earned by him while practicing as an Advocate towards the grant of pensionary benefit and other benefits as per Rule 2.4-A of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II as applicable to Haryana (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), has been declined.

(2.) Petitioner after passing his Bachelor of Law degree, enrolled himself as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana with Enrolment No.P/18/1980 dated 11.01.1980. He was practicing at District Court at Ambala when post of Assistant District Attorney was advertised by the respondents and in pursuance thereto he applied and was selected and appointed. He joined as Assistant District Attorney on 04.06.1986.

(3.) He continued in service and was promoted as a Deputy District Attorney and retired as such on 31.10.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation. He put forth his claim for counting her six years experience as an Advocate towards his service period in accordance with Rule 4.2-A of the Rules as while granting him the pensionary benefit the said period was not taken into consideration by the State of Haryana. The claim of the petitioner has been denied by the respondents vide impugned order dated 18.01.2010 (Annexure P-6) leading to the filing of the present writ petition.