Kesar Chand vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 2 June, 1988
13. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out the
finding recorded by the Division Bench in the impugned
judgment to the effect that "we are, therefore, clearly of the
opinion that the work charged service of the appellant with the
Board must be counted for determining qualifying service for
the purpose of pension" and argued that the judgment of the
High Court should not be construed to mean as giving
direction to the appellant to include previous service rendered
by the respondent No.1 as work charged employee of the State
Government for pension purposes. So far as this argument is
concerned, it is true that the Division Bench of the High Court
has expressed the above opinion in the impugned judgment.
However, the reference to Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil
Services Rules as well as the Full Bench decision of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab &
Ors. [1988 (5) SLR 27] and speaking order dated November 16,
2005 passed by the Board rejecting the claim of respondent
No.1 makes it abundantly clear that the High Court has
directed the appellants to count the period of service rendered
2
by the respondent No.1 in work charged capacity with the
State Government for determining qualifying service for the
purpose of pension. Further, the respondent No.1 has been
directed to deposit the amount of Employee's Contributory
Fund which he had received from the appellants along with
interest as per the directions of the Board before the pension
is released to him. All these directions indicate that the High
Court had come to the conclusion that the period of service
rendered by the respondent No.1 in work charged capacity
under the State Government should be taken into
consideration for determining qualifying service for the
purpose of pension. Non-mention of such direction in the
impugned judgment is merely a slip and the appellants cannot
derive any advantage from this.