SARUP LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's claim that his entire period of service be counted for computing his pension has been controverted by the respondent State with reference to Rule 3.17 -A(f)(i) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume -II, which envisages that only half of the service was to be counted as his salary had been paid from the contingency fund. The relevant rule is reproduced below : - "3.17 -A(a) All service interrupted or continuous followed by confirmation shall be treated as qualifying service, the period of break shall be omitted while working out aggregated service. (b) to (e) x x x x x x x (f) Employees retiring from Government service without confirmation (as temporary employees) in any post on or after 5th February, 1969, will be entitled to invalid/retiring superannuation pension and death -cum -retirement gratuity on the same basis as admissible to permanent employees. In case of death of temporary employee in service, his families will also be entitled to similar benefits as are admissible to the families of permanent employees. This concession will, however, not apply to : - (i) Persons paid from contingencies; provided that half of the period of service of such persons paid from contingencies rendered from 1st January, 1973 onwards for which authentic records of service is available will count for qualifying service subject to the following conditions : (a) Service paid from contingencies should have been in a job involving whole time employment and not part time for a portion of day. (b) Service paid from contingencies should be in a type of work or job for which regular post should have been sanctioned, e.g. malis, chowkidars, khalasis etc. (c) The services should have been such for which the payment is made either on monthly or daily rates computed and paid on a monthly basis and which though not analogous to the regular scale of pay should bear some relations in the matter of pay to those being paid for similar jobs being performed by staff in regular establishments, and (d) The service paid from contingencies should have been continuous and followed by absorption in regular employment without a break". Construing this provision in Joginder Singh v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 5652 of 1995 reported as 1998(1) SCT 795, it had been held as under: - "I am, therefore, of the opinion that the words "half the period of service of such persons paid from contingency" occurring in sub -clause (1) of clause (f) of rule 3.17 -A are bad in law and are accordingly, struck down". The stand of the respondents, therefore, is untenable. This petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above and it is directed that the period of service i.e. from 14.1.1986 to 31.3.1993 when the petitioner had drawn his pay from the contingencies shall count in full for qualifying service for the purpose of computation of pension. It is further directed that the respondent -State of Haryana will make the necessary payment to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date, that a certified copy of this order is supplied to it. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Dasti order. Petition allowed.