STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SHADI LAL MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present is an appeal filed by the State of Haryana under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenging the order dated 16.02.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent. The facts in brevity leading to the filing of the present appeal are that Sh. Shadi Lal Malik (since deceased) (hereinafter to be referred as 'employee') joined the services of the Haryana Dairy Development Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') in April 1970, as Cashier, on regular basis. The Corporation was wholly under the administrative and financial control of the State of Haryana. Upon the formation of Haryana Dairy Development Cooperative Federation (for short 'the Federation'), the respondent-employee was transferred on deputation to the above said Federation, on 01.07.1977, as Accounts Executive. It may be useful to observe that the Federation was also fully funded by the Government and executed schemes of both the Central Government as also the State of Haryana. There was a Model Exotic Animal Farm at Bhiwani, which was under administrative control of the Federation and the respondent-employee was posted to work in the above said Farm. Thereafter, the Board of Directors of the Corporation, vide its resolution dated 30.11.1992 transferred all the employees working in the Model Exotic Animal Farm at Bhiwani to the Animal Husbandry Department of the State of Haryana to be permanently absorbed therein. As a consequence of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Corporation all the employees, including the respondent-employee, who were working at the Model Exotic Animal Farm were transferred to the Animal Husbandry Department of the Government of Haryana w.e.f. 01.04.1994. Dutifully, the respondent employee joined the Animal Husbandry Department and it was in that Department that the respondent-employee served till the date of his retirement i.e. 31.03.1998, upon attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years.

(2.) It is undisputed before us that the service rendered by the respondent-employee remained unblemished.

(3.) The respondent-employee having retired, opted for joining the employees pension scheme but he was held not entitled to the grant of pension as according to the appellants only his service rendered by him in the Animal Husbandry Department would be taken as qualifying service for the purpose of grant of pension. Resultantly, pension was denied to the respondent-employee leading to the filing of the writ petition by him before this Court. The appellants who were respondents in the writ petition were put to notice. In the counter filed by the State of Haryana to the writ petition preferred by the respondent-employee it was stated that the length of service of the respondent-employee as qualifying for the purpose of grant of pension is to be counted only w.e.f. 01.01.1994 i.e. when he joined the Animal Husbandry Department and since he retired from on 31.03.1998, he had rendered only 4 years of service whereas at least 10 years of service was required to qualify him for the grant of pension.