BALWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is the petitioner entitled to count his service rendered in a private transport society for the purpose of claiming retiral benefits on his retirement from the Transport Department of the State of Haryana ? This is the primary question that arises for consideration in this writ petition. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a clerk in Karnal Cooperative Transport Society Ltd., Karnal in August 1948. In the year 1971, the transport services were nationalised in the State of Haryana. Resultantly, the private transport companies were unable to operate on various routes. Various employees including the petitioner were rendered surplus. On October 30, 1972, the petitioner was retrenched from the service. Thereafter, he submitted an application for appointment in the Transport Department of the State Government. He submitted his application on the prescribed proforma on March, 22, 1973. He was asked to appear for interview. He did. On December 6, 1973, the Subordinate Services Selection Board recommended his case for appointment. On May 30, 1974 the petitioner was offered appointment as an Assistant Accounts Clerk in the Transport Department. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P/5 with the writ petition. A perusal of this document shows that the petitioner was placed on probation for a period of two years which could be extended. His conditions of services were to be governed by the provisions of the rules and the orders issued by the State Government. The petitioner was also called upon to produce certain documents. After doing the needful, the petitioner actually joined on June 16, 1974. He retired on January 31, 1984 when he had attained the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years.

(3.) In the year 1990, certain persons working in the Haryana Roadways filed writ petitions praying for the issue of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the State of Haryana to give them the benefit of the service rendered by them with the private employers prior to their absorption in the Transport Department. These writ petitions were allowed by a learned single Judge of this Court vide order dated September 24, 1993. It was held that the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of service rendered by them ''in private organisations for determining their pensionary and super- annuatory benefits''. Presumably, taking a clue from this, the petitioner also represented for the grant of similar benefits. Having failed to get the requisite relief, the petitioner approached this Court through the present writ petition in May, 1994. He prays for the issue of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to count the service rendered by him ''in private co-operative society prior to his absorption and to release the pensionary and superannuatory benefits on the basis of his aforesaid total length of service.''