INDU BALA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 08.08.2012 (Annexure P-4) passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby the claim of the petitioner for pension after her retirement was declined simply on the ground that the policy of regularization dated 01.10.2003 was subsequently withdrawn on 25.04.2007 and her case for regularization was not forwarded by the respondent-Department and she retired as Gram Sevika. The writ of mandamus is also prayed to be issued to the respondents directing the respondents to release the pension and arrears of pension along with interest to the petitioner.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the Indu Bala-petitioner was initially appointed as Craft Teacher on ad hoc basis on 10.11975 in Panchayat Samiti, Narnaul. Her services were regularized vide order dated 211.198 Later on, after giving relaxation of age, she was appointed as Gram Sevika under the Rural Development and Panchayat in the State of Haryana on purely temporary/adhoc basis. Vide order dated 07.07.1995 (Annexure P-2), she continued to work as such and was given the regular pay scale. She retired as Gram Sevika on 31.08.2010 on attaining the age of superannuation. Now, she claims that she is entitled to pension after her retirement. She has also impugned the order dated 08.08.2012 (Annexure P-4) vide which the pension has been declined to her.

(3.) The respondent State in the reply has not disputed the factual position. It has been disclosed in the reply that in the year 2003 it was decided to regularize the services under the policy of regularization dated 01.10.2003 of those Gram Sevikas who were appointed from the Local Bodies. But no such proposal was received from the District Rural Development Agency, Sonipat where the petitioner was employed. Consequently, her services could not be regularized. Vide order dated 25.02.2008, she was transferred to DRDA, Rohtak and retired as ad hoc Gram Sevika on 31.08.2010. It has been pleaded that as per the provisions of Civil Service Rules, an ad hoc employee cannot be granted pension. However, it is further disclosed that as per Rule 17A (a) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, ad hoc service followed by regularization can be counted towards qualifying service for pensionary benefits. It has also been stated in the reply that the Government vide letter dated 25.04.2007 has withdrawn the policy of regularization dated 01.10.2003 in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement passed in Uma Devi's case. The petitioner previously approached this Court by way of CWP No. 10684 of 2012 and vide order dated 30.05.2011, this Court had directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. The representation of the petitioner has been decided by the respondents vide order dated 08.08.2012 (Annexure P-4) vide which the claim of the petitioner was rejected.