AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was initially appointed as Cattle Scarer on 12.4.1985 on daily wage basis at the rate of Rs. 13/- per day, by the Secretary Market Committee, Mohindergarh. It is claimed that on 5.2.1988, he was informed that his services were terminated with effect from 1.5.1987. The petitioner issued a demand notice to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to reinstate him in service but the same was declined and consequently a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was referred to the Labour Court, Gurgaon by the Governor of Haryana on 13.6.1988. The Labour Court vide award dated 13.10.1992 ordered reinstatement of the petitioner in service with continuity of service with full back wages. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 challenged the award of the Labour Court in this Court by filing C.W.P. No. 3326 of 1993, which was dismissed vide order dated 6.4.1993 (P-3). On 1.9.1993, the petitioner was asked to rejoin his duty. Subsequently, a sanctioned post of Cattle Scarer was created and the services of the petitioner were regularised w.e.f. 6.6.1995 (P4). The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 29.4.2003. It has been claimed that by that time he has completed 18 years of continuous and regular service. He made several requests to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for the release of his pension and other pensionary benefits in accordance with the Civil Services Rules applicable to the petitioner but the same were not granted. He then got served a legal notice through his counsel on 18.2.2005 (P-5) claiming that he had served continuously w.e.f. 12.4.1985 to 29.11.2003 i.e. for more than 18 years, therefore, he may be granted pension and other pensionary benefits. When no response was received, the petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 8223 of 2005 in this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 24.5.2005 and a direction was issued to the respondents to decide the legal notice served by the petitioner and to take a final decision within four months whether pension is admissible to the petitioner or not. In pursuance to the aforementioned direction, respondent No. 3 has passed an order dated 21.9.2005 holding that the petitioner cannot be granted pension as per the rules (P-6). The order dated 21.9.2005 (P-6) is the subject matter of challenge in this petition.

(2.) In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 the stand taken is that the petitioner joined the service as a Cattle Scarer on 7.5.1985 on daily wage basis. Details of No. of days on which the petitioner has worked for different intervals has been given in a chart (R-1), which is extracted as under :-

(3.) It has been asserted that w.e.f. 1.12.1986 to 31.12.1993, the petitioner was not on duty. With effect from 1.4.1994 to 5.7.1995 he remained on duty as Cattle Scarer on daily wage/part time basis. It has further been asserted that the petitioner was given fresh appointment w.e.f. 6.7.1995 against the post of Cattle Scarer (R-2). According to the respondents as per the service, record of the petitioner he has completed only 8 years 4 months and 24 days in service and, thus, he is not entitled to pension and other pensionary benefits, inasmuch as, he has not completed the qualifying service of 10 years as per Rule 6.16 of the Civil Services Rules , Volume I.