Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 4]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

The State Of Haryana And Others vs Smt.Dropati Devi on 7 December, 2012

Bench: A.K. Sikri, Rakesh Kumar Jain

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                           CHANDIGARH


           Letters Patent Appeal No.1806 of 2012 (O&M)
              DATE OF DECISION: December 07, 2012


The State of Haryana and others
                                                       .....Appellants
                               versus

Smt.Dropati Devi
                                                     .....Respondent



CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI, CHIEF JUSTICE
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, JUDGE


Present:     Mr.B.S. Rana, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana

             Mr.K.L.Dhingra, Advocate for the caveator/respondent
                  ..

A.K. SIKRI, C.J.: (Oral)

Mr. Rana, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, could not dispute that service of the respondent herein rendered with Panchayat Samiti, Shahbad, with effect from 4.5.1983, when the respondent was regularised in that post, is to be counted for the purpose of pension and that aspect stands settled by the Division Bench of this Court in Om Pati vs. State of Haryana, 2007(1) RSJ 582. However, his submission is that the respondent had joined as Craft Teacher in Panchayat Samiti, Shahbad, with effect from 30.3.1979 on ad hoc basis and she was regularised with effect from 4.5.1983. According to him, the period of service, rendered on ad hoc basis, i.e., from 30.3.1979 to 4.5.1983, cannot be counted for the purpose of pension.

LPA-1806-2012 -2-

We do not find any merit in the submission made by the learned State counsel. Once the respondent was appointed on ad hoc basis and was regularised on the post without any interruption in service, insofar as payment of pension is concerned, this period has also to be counted. The issue is already settled by various judgments of this Court. We also find that there is delay of 180 days in filing the appeal for which there is no satisfactory explanation.

Dismissed.


                                               ( A.K. SIKRI )
                                               CHIEF JUSTICE



December 07, 2012                         (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
pc                                               JUDGE




                                                                   2