SANTOSH SEHRAWAT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the claim of the petitioner is for the grant of pension in respect of the service, which she had rendered initially from 18.11.1980 till 30.05.1983 in the Department of Social Welfare, Haryana as a Supervisor and thereafter from 31.05.1983 till 30.06.1991 as Mukh Sewika in the Department of Development and Panchayat, Haryana.

(2.) The facts as mentioned in the present writ petition are that petitioner initially joined as a Supervisor on ad-hoc basis in the Department of Social Welfare, Haryana on 18.11.1980 and continuously worked there till 30.05.1983. While working in the Social Welfare Department, through a proper channel, the petitioner applied for the post of Mukh Sewika in the Department of Development and Panchayat, Haryana. After being selected as a Mukh Sewika, petitioner resigned from the post of Supervisor in the Social Welfare Department, Haryana in order to join the post of Mukh Sewika. The said resignation was submitted on 30.05.1983, which was accepted and on the very next day, petitioner joined as a Mukh Sewika in the Department of Development and Panchayat, Haryana on 31.05.1983. Thereafter, petitioner kept on working as Mukh Sewika till 18.11.1985. While working as a Mukh Sewika, petitioner was sent on deputation to the District Rural Development Agency, Narnaul on 18.11.1985 and kept on working there till 30.06.1991. Thereafter, petitioner was absorbed as Assistant Project Officer w.e.f. 01.071991 (Annexure P-4). She continued working there till 30.06.2012 when she retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation. It has been admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the post of Assistant Project Officer/Project Officer in the District Rural Development Agency is not pensionable post and therefore in the present writ petition, the claim of the petitioner is that while working in the Department of Development and Panchayat, Haryana, petitioner had 10 years of service to her credit, which was good enough for the grant of pensionary benefits and, therefore, by taking her service from 18.11.1980 till 30.06.1991, petitioner had more than 10 years of service for which she is entitled for the benefit of pension from the Department of Development and Panchayat, Haryana. As the said benefit was not being extended to the petitioner, she filed Cwp No. 21178 of 2014, which was disposed of by this Court on 13.10.2014, asking the respondent-department to decide the legal notice which the petitioner had served upon the respondents claiming the benefit of pension. In pursuance to the order dated 13.10.2014, respondents passed an order dated 27.05.2015 (Annexure P-23) rejecting the claim of the petitioner for the grant of pension by counting the period from 18.11.1980 till 30.05.1983 as a qualifying service. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(3.) In pursuance to the notice of motion issued, the respondents have filed the reply where respondents have stated that keeping in view Rule 3.17 of the Civil Services Rules Volume-II, the period which the petitioner spent with the Department of Social Welfare Haryana from 18.11.1980 till 30.05.1983 as a Supervisor cannot be treated as a qualifying service. Further, an objection has been taken that the petitioner resigned from the post of Supervisor in order to join as a Mukh Sewika in the Department of Rural Development and Panchayat on 31.05.1983 and therefore, once the petitioner has resigned from the post of Supervisor, she cannot be granted any benefit for the said service.