MANI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a mandamus to the respondents to grant to the petitioner pension along with other retiral benefits such as Gratuity, Commutation of Pension, General Provident Fund, Group Insurance Scheme and also encashment of earned leave with interest. This writ petition arises out of the following facts :-

(2.) Petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk in the Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Haryana and he joined his duty as such at Hissar on temporary basis w.e.f. 16.6.1969. His services were terminated on 1.3.1972 on account of reduction in the staff as ordered by the Director, Animal Husbandry, Haryana, Chandigarh.

(3.) After the termination of the service of the petitioner, he was again appointed as a Clerk in the Agricultural Department, Haryana, and he joined his services w.e.f. 3.6.1972 on temporary/ad hoc basis in the office of Deputy Director, Agriculture, Hissar. The services of the petitioner were regularised in this department after his selection from the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana w.e.f. 1.3.1973. After joining the Agriculture Department, petitioner requested the Director, Agriculture, to give him the benefit of his temporary/ad hoc service rendered by him in the Animal Husbandly Department, Haryana, prior to his joining the Agriculture Department, towards his pay. This request of the petitioner was granted and he was granted the benefit of three increments for the period he served as temporary/ad hoc employee in the Animal Husbandry Department. Copy of the letter issued by the Accountant General, Haryana, in this behalf is attached as Annexure P-2 with this writ petition. Petitioner sought voluntary retirement, which was granted w.e.f. 30.11.1992 (AN). After retirement from his service, petitioner vide his letter dated 31.3.1993, Annexure P-6, submitted his pension case and forms duly filled in, for commutation of pension to the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Gurgaon. Retiral benefits to the petitioner were denied on the ground that he had not completed 20 years of qualifying service as the period of ad hoc service could not be considered for the purposes of qualifying service, aggrieved against which the present writ petition has been filed.