MAHAVIR YADAV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court claiming the benefit of counting the past service rendered by him with the Haryana Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation Limited (For short 'HMITC') prior to his transfer to the office of Deputy Commissioner, Mohindergarh at Narnaul. Petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk in the office of HMITC on 25.09.1973. His service was regularized on 01.04.1974. He worked there till 01.10.1992 when he was sent to the Command Area Development Authority on deputation. On his request, he was transferred to the office of Deputy Commissioner and he sought appointment in that office by way of transfer. Recommendation was made in favour of the petitioner and petitioner was ultimately appointed by way of transfer vide letter dated 04.07.2000 (Annexure P-1) in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Mohindergarh at Narnaul. He continued there as such till the date of his retirement i.e. 30.09.2009. While issuing the retiral benefits, the period spent by the petitioner in HMITC has not been taken into consideration by the respondents and the pensionary benefits have been granted to him by taking into consideration the service rendered by him with the respondents.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the claim of the petitioner is not disputed by the respondents with regard to his entitlement for counting of the said period and, therefore, writ petition deserves to be allowed as the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the amount of EPF/CPF alongwith the interest thereon.

(3.) Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner is not entitled to the claim as has been made by him in the present writ petition in the light of the fact that an option under Rule 14.30 of the Civil Services Rule, Volume-II was given to him. An option was open to him in the light of the memorandum dated 07.01.2002 of Finance Department which were not exercised by him and, therefore, the claim could not be granted to him. Further the petitioner had not deposited the employer's share of Contribution Provident Fund with interest received from the old organization and, therefore, he is not entitled to the counting of service rendered by him in HMITC.