KIRAN SAINI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is M.A., B.Ed, was appointed as a Punjabi Teacher in Khanewal Khalsa High School, Shahabad (M), District Kurukshetra, on 13.8.1988. He was appointed against an aided and sanctioned post in a school which is recognised. In the year 1997-98, Education Department of the State advertised some posts of Punjabi Teachers. The petitioner applied for appointment to the said post through proper channel. Upon selection, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Manager of the private school on 14.3.1988 intimating that she stood selected as Punjabi Teacher in the Government service. She accordingly prayed for being relieved to join the new assignment. Her case was duly recommended by the Manager and after acceptance of her resignation, the petitioner was relieved to join the new post. The petitioner accordingly joined the Government service on 7.5.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted several representation for counting her service rendered in the private aided school for retiral benefits. The claim of the petitioner has not been granted and ultimately she has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) The respondents would respond by saying that the petitioner had resigned from the post of Punjabi Teacher where she was serving and her resignation would entail forfeiture of past service and as such, no pension can be granted to the petitioner for this part of the service. Reliance in this regard is made on Rule 14.9 (a) of Punjab Civil Service Rules, which provides that resignation from public service, dismissal, removal etc. entails forfeiture of past service. Reference is also made to Rule 3.12 of Punjab Civil Service Rules to say that the three conditions are essential to qualify for grant of pension. It is, thus, urged that the service of a Government employee does not qualify for pension unless it confirms to following conditions:-

(3.) Reference is also made to Rule 3.16 of the Civil Service Rules, Volume II, which provides that service of the Government employee does not qualify unless he is appointed and his duties are regulated by the Government. It is accordingly stated that the employee of Municipality, grant in aid schools and establishment paid from the house hold allowance of the government are not entitled for pension. Unwittingly, however, the respondents in the reply have conceded that the Government had provided grant in aid to the management of the school for functioning of the school. However, relying upon the provisions of the Civil Service Rules referred to above, it is submitted that this service can not be taken into account for computing the pensionary benefits claimed by the petitioner. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petitioner can not be granted the benefit of service rendered by her on the aided post in the private school.