JASWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Panchayat Secretary on 9.8.1957. The Panchayat Samities were thereafter taken over by the State of Haryana and the petitioner's services were also provincialised as a Panchayat Secretary. The petitioner retired from service on 18.10.1975 vide Annexure P-1 after attaining the age of 55 years. It is the admitted position that after provincialisation of the petitioner's service, the respondent-State of Haryana issued instructions on 22.11.1991, Annexure P-2, which provided that pension was to be made payable to certain categories of employees who had been absorbed in government service. As there was some confusion with regard to the interpretation of these instructions, the matter came to this Court in a number of writ petitions and the same were allowed in favour of the employees of District Boards/Zila Parishads/Panchayat Samities. The petitioner also submitted a representation Annexure P-3 to the petition praying that he too be granted pension in the light of the government's policy decision dated 22.11.1991. This representation was rejected vide order dated 6.1.1997, Annexure P-5 to the petition, on the ground that the petitioner had never been absorbed in government service and, as such, the government instructions dated 22.11.1991 (Annexure P-2) were not applicable to his case. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(2.) In the written statement filed, in response to the notice of motion, the respondents in addition to what has been mentioned in the impugned order Annexure P-5, have placed reliance on Annexure R-I, dated 2.2.1972, in which it has been provided that a Panchayat Secretary, who was to be considered for absorption in government service as a Gram Sachiv, was required to fulfil two conditions; first that he had to be Matriculate or a person having not less than seven years experience as Panchayat Secretary and, second, he should not be more than 45 years of age on 1.3.1971. Admittedly, the petitioner did not fulfil the second qualification as he was more than 45 years of age as on 1.3.1971.

(3.) Mr. Maharaj Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the only reason for denying the petitioner's claim to absorption in Government Service as a Gram Sachiv, was that he had not been more than 45 years of age on 1.3.1971, but has argued that this condition was applicable only to such employees who were joining as Gram Sachivs for the first time. He has also argued in the alternative that in paragraph 2 itself, which laid down the two conditions aforesaid, a relaxation clause with regard to these conditions has also been provided and the State Government was, therefore, required to consider this aspect of the matter as well, before passing the order against the petitioner.