HARPHUL SINGH (SUBEDAR) Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was discharged from the Army on July 1,1972 and thereafter employed as a Clerk on ad hoc basis on January 30, 1973 in the Hide Flying Centre, Hisar which is under the Department of Industries and he worked under the District Industries Officer: As he was an ad hoc employee he was relieved on February 27,1974 after he had put in a little more than one year of service. He was again re- employed as a Clerk in the Sports Department on ad hoc basis on March 29, 1974 where the worked for almost 3 years. On 14.3.1977 he was transferred to the office of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Hisar and soon thereafter his service were regularised as a Clerk on March 20,1977. On attaining the age of superannuation he retired from service on March 31, 1983. His total service in the Sports Department and in the office of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Hisar was for 9 years and 3 days. His claim for pension was rejected by the Accountant General, Haryana as per his communication dated December 16,1983 on the ground that he did not have to his credit the qualifying service of 10 years which was necessary for the grant of pension. His service under the, industries Department from January 30, 1973 upto February 27,1974 was not counted towards pension and it is this action of the respondents that has been impugned in the present writ petition.

(2.) The only grievance of the petitioner is that his service of more than one year with the Industries Department should be taken into account under the rules governing his employment and if that is done, he has the requisite qualifying service of more than 10 years so as to entitle him to claim pension under the rules. Petitioner being a Government employee his service was governed by the Punjab, Civil Service Rules. He served the Industries Department for more than one year and then after a break of twenty nine days he was re-employed as a Clerk and after putting in service of nine years and three days he superannuated on March 31,1983. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the break in service of twenty nine days can be condoned. It is not disputed that under Rule 6.12 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II (for short 'the Rules') of Government employee is entitled to pension after after he has put in service of not less than ten years. If the break of twenty nine days could be condoned, his total service would be for more than ten years so as to entitle him to pension but not otherwise. According to Rule 4.21 of the Rules, an interruption in the service of a Government employee entails forfeiture of his past service except in the following cases.-

(3.) Admittedly, the case of the petitioner does not fall in any of the exception. Rule 4.23, however, deals with condonation of interruption in service and reads thus:-