CHHAJJA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner joined service as a driver with Punjab Roadways on 16.6.1959 in the erstwhile State of Punjab and on its reorganisation in the year 1966 he was allocated to the State of Haryana. While going on a bicycle on 3.5.1972 he was knocked down by a speeding truck as a result of which he received severe injuries and remained in hospital. On 16.1.1973 he joined duty as a Yard Master as he was not fit to drive a heavy vehicle. He was medically examined by the Chief Medical Officer, Ambala who found him unfit for driving a heavy vehicle and consequently his services were terminated with effect from 31.7.1973. He preferred an appeal/mercy petition to the then Transport Minister with a prayer that he be reinstated and given some light duty. It appears that with the passage of time his physical condition improved and he was in a position to drive a heavy vehicle. The Transport Minister as per order dated 18.12.1979 directed that if the petitioner is found medically fit for driving a vehicle he may be given a fresh appointment as a driver. Thereafter the petitioner was given a fresh appointment and he joined the Haryana Roadways again on 11.3.1980 as a driver from which post he retired on 31.10.1989 on attaining the age of superannuation. He has not been given pension on his retirement on the ground that he does not have the qualifying service of 10 years. He represented to the department that his past service as a driver be counted for the purpose of computing his qualifying service for pension. This request was not granted and hence the present petition.

(2.) The only prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the past service of his client be counted for calculating the pension and if that is done he has the requisite qualifying service entitling him to claim pension. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Rule 4.20 contained in the Civil Service Rules, Volume-II which is reproduced hereunder for facility of reference :-

(3.) Writ petition has been contested on behalf of the respondents and it is pleaded that in pursuance to the order passed by the then Transport Minister, the petitioner was given a fresh appointment on 11.3.1980 and, therefore, his past service could not be counted. The action of the department in not granting pension to the petitioner is sought to be justified on the ground that he does not have the qualifying service of 10 years. As regards Rule 4.20 referred to by the petitioner in support of his case it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the same would be attracted only if the petitioner had been reinstated but that is not the case.