State of Haryana and Others vs Balwan Singh

M.M. Kumar, J.—The short issue raised in the present appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent by the State of Haryana is whether the ad hoc service rendered by an employee in the State of Haryana, which is followed by regularization would count as qualifying service for the purpose of pension.

The learned Single Judge in his order dated 23.02.2010 has directed that ad hoc service rendered by the writ Petitioner-Respondent from 31.07.1969 to 04.08.1975 on the post of Squad Teacher be treated as qualifying service because the writ Petitioner-Respondent was appointed on regular basis as JBT teacher by the District Education Officer, Jind. The matter is covered in favour of the writ Petitioner-Respondent by a Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab 1988 (2) PLR 223 . In Kesar Chand''s case (supra), the constitutional validity of Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Service Rules, Vol.-II was declared to be ultra vires because it had refused to take into account the work charged service as qualifying service for the purposes of pension even when it is followed by regularisation. The service rendered by an employee on work charged basis would be at a lower pedestal than the service rendered by an employee on ad hoc basis. Following the Full Bench judgment, State of Haryana has amended the Rule and new Rule has been added by issuing a notification dated 09.06.1992 being Rule 3.17(A). By the aforesaid rule, even the service rendered by contingent paid employee followed by regularisation has been made as qualifying service for the purposes of pension. Therefore, it cannot be contemplated that service rendered by a person on ad hoc basis would not qualify for pension.

Even otherwise, we do not find that there is any distinguishing feature warranting non-application of law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Kesar Chand''s case (supra). There is, thus, no merit in the instant appeal, which does not warrant admission.

Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

In view of the dismissal of appeal on merit, we do not wish to pass any order on the application seeking 108 days'' delay in filing of the appeal.