SATISH KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court assailing the communication dated 11.10.2007 (Annexure P-6) vide which the claim of the petitioner for counting his service rendered by him as Officer of the Hisar-Sirsa Kshetriya Gram Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'Gramin Bank'), Hisar, from 06.05.1991 to 25.09.1997 has not been counted for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Officer in Gramin Bank, Hisar on 06.05.1991. He continued with the said bank till 25.09.1993 when he applied for the post of HCS (Executive) and Allied Service through proper channel and was selected and appointed as a Block Development and panchayat Officer. Petitioner on his selection, resigned from the post held by him in the Gramin Bank on 25.09.1997 and immediately joined the very next date on 26.09.1997 as a Block Development & Panchayat Officer. Thereafter, the petitioner was nominated to HCS (Executive) Services on 04.10.2004 and continues as such. He claimed the benefit of counting his previous service rendered by him from 06.05.1991 to 25.09.1997 as an Officer of the Gramin Bank for the purpose of counting it for the pensionary benefits. The said claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents vide communication dated 11.10.2007 (Annexure P-6) holding therein that the Gramin Bank is a Public Sector Undertaking and is not covered under the instructions dated 07.01.2002 (Annexure P-2). This order has been assailed by the petitioner through the present writ petition.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents have proceeded to misread the instructions dated 07.01.2002 (Annexure P-2). He contends that the petitioner was working, under an authority which is indeed a Statutory Body as per the definition provided for in the aforesaid instructions. The requirement as per the definition is the employee who has either been a member of the Statutory Body or an Autonomous Body defined therein except for those who were specifically excluded in the explanation clause would be entitled for the benefit of counting his past service. He thus contends that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner is not justified.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the Gramin Bank is a Public Sector Undertaking established by the Central Government statute i.e. the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976, with a share of Central Government in the bank's capital to the extent of 50% and that of the State Government only 15% with sponsor bank Punjab National Bank having 35% share. Since it is a Public Sector Undertaking which is specifically excluded in the explanation clause to the definition of Statutory Body/Autonomous Body as provided in Clause 3 of the said instructions. The claim as made by the petitioner in the present writ petition cannot be accepted. His further contention is that the instructions dated 07.01.2002 only grants benefit to the employees of the State Autonomous Bodies or Statutory Bodies which are both under the Government of Haryana and since the Statutory Body, even if, as projected by the petitioner is accepted the same being not under the control of Haryana Government will not entitle the petitioner for the claim as made by him.