GAINDA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of the three writ petitions viz. C.W.P No. 14654 of 1992, 13485 and 15144 of 1993, as a common question of law is involved in these cases. For facility of reference, facts are being taken from C.W.P No. 14654 of 1992.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Panchayat Secretary in Block Hathin, District Faridabad w.e.f. August 16, 1961 and served in various Gram Panchayats upto May 31, 1963. It has been alleged and not disputed that there after the employees of Gram Panchayats were taken over by the Panchayat Samities and petitioner in this Panchayat Samiti W.c.f. June 01, 1963 to June 11, 1972. Subsequently, the petitioner along with other employees of the Panchayat Samities were taken in the service of the Haryana Government w.e.f. June 12, 1972. On attaining the age of superannuation he retired from Government service on March 31, 1991 from Block Dadri, District Bhiwani. It is the case of the petitioner that though he was entitled to reckon the entire period of service in the Gram Panchayat/Panchayat Samiti for calculating his pensionary benefits, yet the respondents only reckoned his service as qualifying service for purpose of pensionary benefits w.e.f. March 01, 1965. The representation of the petitioner that he is entitled for the benefit of his entire service for purpose of reckoning his pension was rejected by the respondents on May 21, 1992, copy at Annexurc p.3. This led the petition to file the present writ petition. It may be observed here that the Haryana Government had issued instructions on November 22, 1991, which arc reproduced hereunder for ready reference:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the point involved in the present writ petition us squarely covered by the Division Bench's judgement of this Court in Rati Ram v. State of Haryana & Anr.,1995 2 SLR 691, in which it was held that the entire service rendered by the persons, like the petitioner, in the Gram Panchayats/Samities is liable to be reckoned for calculating the pension. In view of the Division Bench's Judgement learned counsel for the respondents could not rebut the claim of the petitioner.