PURAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant benefit of past service to the petitioner w.e.f. 12.04.1973 to 11.09.1978 towards qualifying service for pension and other retiral benefits. A further prayer has also been made for issuance of a direction that the gap period (interruption) of 79 days between relieving from Haryana Food and Supplies Department and joining in Haryana Urban Development Authority (here-in-after referred to as 'HUDA') be condoned in view of Rule 4.23 of Civil Services Rule (Volume-II) along with all consequential benefits. Petitioner was initially appointed as Sub-Inspector in Haryana Food and Supplies Department on ad hoc basis and he continued to work there till his services were retrenched i.e. on 11.09.1978. He remained in that department for a period of five years and five months. As per decision of the State Government, all retrenched employees were ordered to be absorbed in various departments. Petitioner was also absorbed as a Clerk in the Department of HUDA. There was a break of 79 days after the date of retrenchment and appointment as Clerk in HUDA, which was not due to fault of the petitioner. The pay of the petitioner, which was drawn by him in Haryana Food and Supplies Department, was protected in the subsequent department i.e. HUDA. Petitioner got retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. on 28.02.2006. While preparing the pension papers of the petitioner, his total service came out to be 27 years and 8 months but while granting him pension and other retiral benefits, his service from 30.11.1978 to 28.02.2006 was taken into consideration as qualifying service and his previous service under State Government from 12.04.1973 to 11.09.1978 was not taken into consideration as qualifying service for pension and other retiral benefits but it was counted for granting the benefit of pay by protecting his pay of previous service. Petitioner submitted various representations to grant benefit of previous service as qualifying service for pension and other retiral benefits but no action was taken thereupon. The petitioner had issued a legal notice through his counsel on 10.10.2007 but still, no action was taken, hence, the petitioner filed the present petition praying for the same benefits, as has been granted to one Dev Dutt, who was also appointed in the department of HUDA along with him.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the present petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in case State of Orissa and another v. Mamata Mohanty, 2011 2 SCT 718 : Civil Appeal No. 1272 of 2011, decided on 09.02.2011.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that as per directions issued in CWP No. 20912 of 2008 filed by said Dev Dutt, decided on 05.09.2011 who was also appointed in HUDA along with other retrenched employees, benefits have been granted to him. The case of the present petitioner is squarely covered by decision in cases Vijav Laxmi v. State of Punjab, 1994 2 SCT 85 and State of Haryana and another v. Deepak Sood and others passed in Civil Appeal No. 4448 of 2008, decided on 15.07.2008 as appeal filed by the State was dismissed and judgment of this Court, whereby, the claim of the petitioner was allowed, was upheld.