Hissar. The legal controversy in the present case stands settled in number of cases i.e. CWP No. 6910 of 1996, decided on February 16, 1995, titled as Mani Ram Vs. State of Haryana , wherein it was held that once the continuity of service was given towards pay the same cannot be denied for retiral benefits. Similarly in Vijay Laxmi and others Vs. State of Punjab and others , 1995 (3) RSJ 561 (DB), decided on November 16, 1993, it was held that “once the past service has been recognized for the purpose of pay, there appears to be no justification for denying them the same benefit towards pension etc.” In another Division Bench judgment of this Court titled Smt.Veena Shashi Vs. State of Haryana and others , 1994 (2)RSJ 502, it was observed that “in view of the above the writ petition succeeds. The order dated September 22, 2005 (P-II) is hereby quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to grant to the petitioner benefit of service rendered by her from July 16, 1969 till 1980 by treating the same as qualifying service for the purposes of pension. However, the payment of Contributory provident fund, which has been availed by the petitioner, shall be refunded by her to the respondents. Let revised pension be calculated and released to her after giving the benefit of service from July 16, 1969 till 1980, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.”
