Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In this case of SURINDER NATH KESAR VERSUS BOARD OF SCHOOL EDUCATION & ORS, an appeal was filed against the judgment dated 21.05.2015 of High Court of Punjab & Haryana by which LPA No.1747 of 2014 filed by the appellant has been dismissed. LPA was filed by the appellant challenging the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 20.04.2013 in Civil Writ Petition No. 3037 of 2003 by which judgment learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. In this case The appellant was initially appointed by Board of School Education, Haryana, BhiwaniOn 08.05.1970 on the post of Proof Reader.
The appellant due to his family circumstance voluntarily retired on 01.02.1988. The appellant submitted a representation to the Education Minister of Haryana. The Education Minister, Haryana vide his letter dated 27.03.1993 forwarded the application of the appellant recommending consideration of his case for re-appointment on humanitarian ground after treating the period of absence without pay even if be Rules have to be relaxed. The Board keeping into view the recommendation of the Education Minister resolved on 31.05.1994 granting sanction to reappoint the appellant afresh. It was observed that for giving the benefit of past service, the opinion of the Government be obtained. A fresh appointment order dated 25.07.1994 was issued to the appellant for appointment on the post of Proof Reader in the pay-scale of Rs.1400- 2600, in pursuance of which, the appellant joined on 03.08.1994. on 05.12.1994, Secretary of the Board wrote to the Secretary of Government of Haryana, Education Department seeking clarification on benefit of past service to the appellant. On 05.12.1994, the respondent No.4 clarified that past service of appellant could only be counted for the purpose of seniority and pension after giving the benefit of continuity in service and the period of his break be treated as leave without pay.
The Board vide its resolution dated 31.05.1995 decided to condone the period from 02.02.1988 to 02.08.1994 by treating the same as leave without pay for continuity of service for the purpose of pension and seniority. The Financial Commissioner & Secretary, Haryana Government, Education Department wrote a letter dated 27.05.1997=regarding giving the benefit of past service to the appellant. The letter referred to Rule 4.23 of Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume II (hereinafter referred to as “PCSR”) which states that period of interruption of one year can be condoned forgiving the benefit of pension and whereas in the case of the appellant, the period of six years is condoned for the purpose of pension. Clarification was asked for in the above regard. The Board asked the appellant on 04.02.1998 to deposit alongwith interest upto 31.03.1998 amount with regard to gratuity provident fund, leave encashment etc. as received by him consequent to voluntary retirement. On 18.01.1999, the Director,Local Audit, Haryana wrote to the Secretary] of the Board that Rule 4.22 of Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume II is not attracted and relevant rule is 4.23, which rule only authorised condonation of break of service upto one year duration.
The condonation can only be made by competent authority in relaxation of provisions of Rule 4.23 of PCSR. On 15.05.2000,the appellant deposited the amount with interest upto 31.03.1998. The Director, Secondaryc Education vide letter dated 24.08.2000 referring to audit objections requested for obtaining relaxation in Rule 4.23 of PCSR from Finance Department through Commissioner and Secretary Haryana Govt. Education Department.On 24.08.2001, Director, Secondary Education, Haryana wrote to the Secretary of the Board that Finance Department has declined to accept the proposal and has suggested that the pay of the employee be fixed under Foot Note 6 of Rule 7.18 of PCSR. The Board asked the appellant to deposit interest upto 31.12.2001, which was deposited on 04.01.2002.
The appellant retired on 31.05.2002. After retirement certain retirement benefits were paid to the appellant, which were accepted with protest. On 02.08.2002, appellant submitted a representation to Board claiming pension. On 26.11.2002, the appellant was informed that as per Finance Department and as per pension rules he has already been paid the benefits, which were due to you on account of re-employment. After hearing the case the supreme court held “The appellant’s period after fresh appointment from 03.08.1994 being less than qualifying service of 10 years, he was not entitled for pension. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the appellant is not entitled for any relief in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.”
86540
103860
630
114
59824