Allowed

Prithvi Singh v. State of Haryana and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Aug 2024CWP/13428/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the petitioner's CWP claiming benefits for ad hoc service rendered by her deceased husband. The court relied on previous judgments to compute the service as qualifying despite the interruption gap, allowing re-calculation of pension and interest.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; ad hoc service counted for pension; kya to retire benefits released with 9% interest; re-calculation directed.

Prithvi Singh Vs State of Haryana… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CWP-13428-2020 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

210

¶5

CWP-13428-2020 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.08.202 4

Prithvi Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryan a and Others

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

¶12

Present : M r . Ravinder Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

M r . Tapan Kumar, DAG, Haryana. *********

¶14

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

¶15

Pr a yer made in the present petitio n is for granting benefit of ad- h oc services render e d by the petitioner w.e.f. 20.04.1973 to 11.09.1978 for pension a ry and other retira l benefits.

¶16

Le a rned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment passed by this Court in Kashmiri Devi vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP-3295-2011, decided on 1 4 .02.2017, involving the ide n tical issue regarding the sa m e department, ag a inst which there is no LPA file d and which covers his case on all fours. Relevant paras whereof read thus:

¶17

“The question before this Court is as to whether t w o spells of the ad hoc servic e rendered by the husband of t he petitioner, as reproduced a b ove, which are about 10 year s 6 months and 20 days, are to b e computed as a period qualify i ng for the pensionary service or not? Rule 3.17A of the Pu n jab Civil Services Rules Volu m e II, Chapter III, which deals with the service qualifying for pension, is reproduced as un d er:3.17-A. (a) All service inte r rupted or continuous followed by

¶18

ASHOK KUMAR 2024.08.12 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CWP-13428-2020 (O&M)

¶20

-2-

¶21

confirmation shall be treate d as qualifying service; the per i od of break shall be omitted w h ile working out aggregate serv i ce. (b) Extraordinary leave cou n ted towards increments under r u le 4.9 (b) (ii) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Par t -I, will be accounted towards s e rvice qualifying for pension. (c) Periods of suspension, dismissal, removal, compuls o ry retirement followed by rein s tatement will count for pensio n to the extent permissible under rule 4.17 of Punjab Civil Servi c es Rules Volume-II read wit h rule 7.3 of the Punjab C i vil Services Rules, Volume-I, P a rt-I. (d) Resignation from the pu b lic service or dismissal or remo v al from it for misconduct, in s olvency, inefficiency, not due to age, or failure to pass a p rescribed examination will en t ail forfeiture of past service i n terms of rule 4.19 (a) of Pun j ab Civil Service Rules Volume - II.

¶22

(e) An interruption in the s e rvice of a Government emplo y ee caused by wilful absence fr o m duty and unauthorized abse n ce without leave will as hither t o entail forfeiture of past serv i ce. [Explanation.— The willfu l refusal to perform duties b y a n Government employee by any means including pen do w strike shall be deemed to be w illful absence from duty.]2 (f) Employees retiring fr o m Government service with o ut confirmation (as temporary e mployees) in any post on or a f ter 5 February, 1969 will b e entitled to invalid/ retiri n g/ superannuation pension an d death-cum-retirement gratuity on the same basis as admissibl e to permanent employees. In c a se of death of temporary empl o yee in service his family will a lso be entitled to similar benefi t s as are admissible to the fami l ies of permanent employees. T h is concession will, however, n ot apply to:

¶23

(i) Persons paid from conti n gencies; provided that half of t he period of service of such persons paid from contingen c ies rendered from 1st January, 1973 onwards for which authe n tic records of service is availa b le will count as qualifying ser v ice subject to the following con d itions:(a) Service paid from conti n gencies should have been in a j ob involving whole time emp l oyment and not part time fo r a portion of day,

¶24

(b) Service paid from contingencies should be in a type of work or job for which regular post should have b e en sanctioned e.g. Malis, Chow k idars, Khalasis etc. (c) The service should have b een such for which the paymen t is made either on monthly or d aily rates computed and paid o n a monthly basis and which t h ough not analogous to the reg u lar scale of pay should bear so m e relations in the matter of pa y to

¶25

ASHOK KUMAR 2024.08.12 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CWP-13428-2020 (O&M)

¶27

-3-

¶28

those being paid for simila r jobs being performed by staf f in regular establishments; and (d) The service paid from contingencies should have b e en continuous and followed by absorption in regular employm e nt without a break.

¶29

Note.─ While bringing cont i ngent paid employee to the reg u lar establishment an entry for verification of contingent ser v ice should be made at the app r opriate place in his service bo o k, preferably before making any entry regarding his reg u lar service in the following man n er:-

¶30

"Service from _________ _ to ___________ paid out of contingencies verified from acquittance rolls and office co p ies of contingent bills". This en t ry should be signed by the Hea d of Office with date.

¶31

(ii) [Deleted].

¶32

(iii) Casual Labour;

¶33

(iv) Contract Officer; and

¶34

[(v) Persons born on Contributory Provident F u nd Establishment.] [(g) The entire service re n dered by an employee as w o rk charged shall be reckon e d towards retirement bene f its provided─

¶35

(i) such service is followed b y regular employment; (ii) there is no interruption i n the two or more spells of ser v ice or the interruptions fall with i n condonable limits; and (iii) such service is a whole t ime employment and not part-ti m e or portion of day.] Under this Rule all th e interrupted or continuous ser v ice followed by confirmation s h all be treated as qualifying ser v ice for pensionary benefits. Th e period of break shall be omit t ed while working out the aggre g ate service.

¶36

Rule 4.23, which fa l ls under the Chapter of Spe c ial Additions to Service Quali f ying for Superannuation Pens i on and which deals with condo n ation of breaks and deficiencie s in - service is reproduced below: 4.23 Interruption in servi c e (either between two spells of permanent, or temporary service or between a spell of temporary service and per m anent service or vice versa) in t he case of an officer retiring o n or after the 5th January, 19 6 1, may be condoned, subje c t to the following conditions, namely:(1) The interruption shoul d have been caused by reas o ns beyond the control of Gover n ment employee concerned. (2) Service preceding the i n terruption should not be less t h an five years' duration. In ca s es where there are two or m o re

¶37

ASHOK KUMAR 2024.08.12 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

CWP-13428-2020 (O&M)

¶39

-4-

¶40

interruptions, the total servi c e, pensionary benefits in respec t of which shall be lost if the in t erruption are not condoned sho u ld not be less than five years. (3) The interruption shoul d not be of more than one years duration. In cases where th e re are two or more interrupti o ns, the total period of all interr u ptions to be condoned should n ot exceed one year.

¶41

A perusal of Rule 4.2 3 shows that it primarily deals w ith condonation of interruption s in two spells of permanent a nd temporary service, which f o llows that in case the interrupt i on is less than one year only th e n the said period can be condo n ed and ignoring that interrupti o n the said gap period is also to be treated as qualifying for pe n sion. It is different from count i ng the ad hoc service itself. Ru le 3.17A shows that all servi c es interrupted or continuous f o llowed by confirmation are to be treated as qualifying servic e . While counting the said peri o d, the break shall be omitted while working out the aggregate service. It means that if the b reak is more than one year an d is not condoned under Rule 4. 2 3, same has to be excluded w h ile computing aggregate service. A harmonious reading of b o th the provisions shows that in case the gap of ad hoc service a nd regular service is less than o n e year, the same can be condo n ed and even that interrupted pe r iod can be computed as qualify i ng service for the pension. If t h e gap is more than one year an d is not condonable under Rule 4 .23 then that period of interrupt i on has to be excluded while computing the aggregate ser v ice qualified for pension. It w i ll amount to be going too far to conclude as done by the St a te that if the interruption is m o re than one year the entire ad hoc service is to excluded w h ile computing the qualifying se r vice for pension. This was exa c tly done by the State while pass i ng the impugned order/ letter. The matter was consi d ered by a coordinate bench of t his Court in Shanno Devi vs. St a te of Haryana and others, 2013 (2) PLR 773, wherein, while co n sidering the said two Rules, it w as observed as under:-

¶42

A perusal of the impugne d order dated 17.6.2011, Annex u re P3, would reveal that the claim of the petitioner has b e en rejected in the light of R u le 4.23 of Punjab Civil Servi c es Rules, Vol.II holding that i n terruption in service between t w o spells can be condoned if th e service prior to interruption is n ot less than five years and in t erruption in service between t w o spells should not be more t h an one year's duration. In the li g ht of Rule 4.23, a view has been taken that since the ad h oc service of the petitioner pri o r to interruption is less than f ive years and the interruption itself between the two spells of

¶43

ASHOK KUMAR 2024.08.12 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶44

CWP-13428-2020 (O&M)

¶45

-5-

¶46

service is more than one yea r , accordingly, the service rende r ed by the petitioner on adhoc basis for the period 21.2.1974 to 5.8.1978 cannot be consid e red as qualifying service for t he purposes of pension and gra t uity. 8. I find that the respon d ent-authorities while passing t he impugned order dated 17.6 . 2011, Annexure P3, have cle a rly proceeded on an erroneous premise. Rule 4.23 contained in Punjab Civil Services Rules, Chapter IV, Vol.II regul a tes Condonation of Interru p tions and Deficiencies. T he interruption in service as r e gards the petitioner between t he spell of adhoc service and p ermanent service was clearly n ot condonable as the adhoc service rendered by the petitio n er preceding the interruption w a s less than five years duration a nd such interruption itself was m ore than a period of one year. Be that as it may, the claim o f the petitioner was not as rega r ds condonation of such inter r uption in service i.e. the per i od between the initial adhoc s e rvice and followed by perman e nt regular service. Rather the claim of the petitioner was to co u nt the adhoc service rendered b y her for the period 21.2.197 4 to 5.8.1978 towards qualifying service and by omitting the per i od of break. Such claim of the petitioner stands squarely cove r ed in the light of Rule 3.17- A of Punjab Civil Services Ru l es. Undoubtedly, there was no fault on the part of husb a nd of the petitioner because h is earlier ad hoc services were terminated due to the aboliti o n of the post. Therefore, he is n ot to be blamed for the same.

¶47

As a result of the fo r egoing discussion, the petitio n is allowed. Ad hoc service of h usband of the petitioner rende r ed as Sub Inspector from 1 2 .5.1967 to 24.6.1972 and fr o m 9.4.1973 to 11.9.1978, onl y is to be computed as qualify i ng service for the pension. T w o spells of gap between ad h oc service and permanent se r vice are to be excluded w h ile computing qualifying serv i ce and only the said period of service shall be compute d as qualifying for the pensi o n. Consequently, the impugne d order dated 23.7.2008 (Annex u re P2) and the impugned letter dated 9.9.2010 (Annexure P3) are hereby quashed. Responde n ts are directed to re-calculate t he retiral and pensionary ben e fits accordingly and release t he same to the petitioner with i n three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy o f this order.

¶48

So far as interest on t h e previous benefits released to h er without computing the ad hoc service of husband of t he petitioner is concerned, t h e petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum o n the gratuity and commuted va l ue of pension, starting three m o nths from the date of death of h er

¶49

ASHOK KUMAR 2024.08.12 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶50

CWP-13428-2020 (O&M)

¶51

-6-

¶52

husband i.e. 1.4.2009 till the date of payment. So far as additional payment after computing the arrears is concerned, the same shall be released with interest @ 9% per ann u m starting three months from t h e date of retirement of husban d of the petitioner till the date of p ayment.”

¶53

Le a rned State counsel despite his best efforts was unable to controvert the factual position and draw o u t any distinctive aspects in t he aforementioned judgment or cite any contrary l a w.

¶54

4. In v iew of the aforesaid, the prese n t petition is disposed of, in te r ms

¶55

of the judgment passed in Kashmiri Devi (supr a ).

¶56

	(A MAN C J	HAUDHARY) UDGE
09.08.2024
ashok
Whethers peaking/reasoned	: Yes	/ No
Whetherr eportable	: Yes	/ No

¶57

ASHOK KUMAR 2024.08.12 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Prithvi Singh v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prithvi Singh v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babita Gupta Vs State of Haryana and Others

Vidya Nand & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Ravikant Vs Haryana Staff Selection Commission

Partibha Singh Vs State of Haryana, etc.

Reena Rani Vs State of Haryana and Others

Satya Parkash Vs State of Haryana and Others