Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1361 (PNJ)

Hardip Singh v. State Of Punjab

2003-09-26

HEMANT GUPTA, JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR

body2003
Judgment HEMANT GUPTA, J. 1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated June 6, 2002 (Annexure-P5) whereby the representation of the petitioners for counting continuous ad hod temporary service followed by regular service towards qualifying service for pensionary benefits was rejected. 2. The petitioners were appointed as JBT teachers on 1/12/1966 and 23/05/1966 on ad hoc basis respectively. Their services were regularised w. e. f.25/07/1970 as per Government policy. The petitioners retired from Government service on attaining the age of superannuation on 29/02/2000 and 31/01/1996 respectively. 3. Prior to their appointment on regular basis, the petitioners have rendered ad hoc service from 196 6/07/1970. Their ad hoc services were being renewed after notional breaks and breaks on account of summer vacations. The details of such breaks in their ad hoc services prior to their regularisation are as under: Name/name of the School Time from Time of break to 1. Sh. Hardip Singh (Retd.) Head June 1, 1967 June 1, 1967 Break Summer vacation Teacher GPS (G) Mattewal, June 11, 1967 July 25, 1967 after 6 months Block Tarsika (Asr.) June 13, January 26, 1968 January 29, 1968 1968 August 8, 1968 Summer vacation February 9, 1969 February 10, 1969 after 6 months June 13, 1969 July 24, 1969 Summer vacation June 15, 1970 July 24, 1970 Summer vacation 2. Sh. Jaswant Singh (Retd.) JBT July 5, 1966 August 15, 1966 Summer vacation GPS Niberwind February 23, February 28, 1967 after 6 months 1967 Tarsika July 11, 1967 July 25, 1967 Summer vacation January 16, 1968 January 28, 1968 after 6 months June 13, 1968 July 25, 1968 Summer vacation January 26, 1969 January 27, 1969 after 6 months June 13, 1969 July 24, 1969 Summer vacation January 25, 1970 January 27, 1970 after 6 months July 13, 1970 July 24, 1970 Summer vacation 4. The petitioners have claimed that their ad hoc service are continuous and, therefore, be counted towards qualifying service for grant of pensionary benefits in terms of Rule 4.23 of the Punjab Civil Services, Volume II. Reliance was also placed on instructions dated 26/10/1995 (Annexure P-4 ). The representation of the petitioners to claim benefit of such service was rejected by the District Education officer (Primary), Amritsar, on June 6, 2002 holding that petitioners are not entitled to pay for the vacation period after 30 years. 5. Reliance was also placed on instructions dated 26/10/1995 (Annexure P-4 ). The representation of the petitioners to claim benefit of such service was rejected by the District Education officer (Primary), Amritsar, on June 6, 2002 holding that petitioners are not entitled to pay for the vacation period after 30 years. 5. The State Government in its reply denied that ad hoc service can be counted towards qualifying service for grant of pensionary benefits as such interrupted service on ad hoc basis is not countable for pensionary benefits under the Rules. It was further contended that the petitioners were relieved on the last working day prior to summer vacations being ad hoc employees but were given the work after the expiry of summer vacations. 6. The question whether ad hoc service prior to appointment on regular basis is liable to be counted was raised before a Division bench of this Court in the case titled Hazura singh V/s. State of Punjab and Ors. (Civil Writ petition No.19732 of 2001) decided on January 14, 2003. It has been held therein that the period of ad hoc and temporary service prior to regularisation of the service is liable to be counted for the purpose of gratuity and pension if the break in service is for a reason beyond the control of the employee. 7. Rule 4.23 of the Rules as amended reads as under: "in the absence of a specific indication to the contrary in the service record, an interruption between two spells of service rendered under the State Government shall be treated as automatically condoned, and the pre-investigation service shall be treated as qualifying service for pension purposes except where the interruption has been caused by resignation, dismissal or removal from service or due to participation in a strike, but the period of interruption itself shall under no circumstances, be reckoned as qualifying service for pension purposes. " 8. A perusal of the aforesaid Rule shows that an interruption between two spells of service rendered under the State Government is to be treated as automatically condoned except where the interruption has been caused by resignation, dismissal or removal from service or due to participation in a strike. The interruption in the case of the petitioners is neither on account of resignation, dismissal or removal from service or due to participation in a strike. 9. The interruption in the case of the petitioners is neither on account of resignation, dismissal or removal from service or due to participation in a strike. 9. In view of the above provisions as explained by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment rendered on January 14, 2003 in hazura Singhs case (supra), ad hoc service rendered by the petitioners prior to their appointment on regular basis is to be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits. There was no wilful absence from duty by the petitioners prior to their appointment on regular basis. The breaks in service were unilateral act of the State Government. The claim of the petitioners is not for pay for the vacation period but to count the period spent on ad hoc basis towards pensionary benefits. This aspect has not been addressed by the District Officer (Primary), Amritsar. 10. Consequently, impugned order dated june 6, 2002, is set aside. The State government is directed to count the days of actual ad hoc service of the petitioners towards their qualifying service for the purposes of pensionary benefits.