Hon. Ashok Pal Singh, J.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This petition is directed against order dated 21.1.2009 appended as annexure no. 15 to the writ petition, by which respondent no. 1- Principal Secretary, U.P. Government, Lucknow has rejected representation of the petitioner. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the aforesaid order and also for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to compute his earlier services rendered between 10.7.1965 and 30.6.1975 for the purpose of fixation of his pension.
The petitioner claims to have initially worked as Mono Type Key Board Operator in Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana for the period 10.7.1965 to 3.7.1971 and after resigning therefrom, he joined services at G.B. Pant University of Agriculture, Pant Nagar and served there with effect from 9.7.19971 to 30.6.1975 on contractual basis. Thereafter, he was selected and appointed as lecturer in Mechanical Type Setting at Northern Regional Institute of Printing Technology, Allahabad where he joined on 1.7.1975 and has retired from service on 30.6.2000. After his retirement, he is getting pension as admissible under the Rules.
According to the petitioner, in terms of the Government Order dated 10.7.1998 appended as annexure no. 6 to the writ petition, the period of service rendered by him in Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana with effect from 10.7.1965 to 3.7.1971 and thereafter at G.B. Pant University of Agriculture, Pant Nagar with effect from 9.7.19971 to 30.6.1975, is liable to be computed for the purpose of fixation of his pension.
Claiming the aforesaid benefit, the petitioner earlier approached this Court twice, firstly by filing writ petition No. 25536 of 2000 and thereafter by Writ Petition No. 35676 of 2001. Both the aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of by the High Court with direction to the respondent to consider his representation. In compliance of the direction issued by the Court in its judgment and order dated 12.3.2008 in subsequent Writ Petition No. 35676/2001, representation of the petitioner claiming the aforesaid benefit has been considered and rejected by the respondent by order dated 21.1.2009, which is impugned in the present petition.
Perusal of the impugned order shows that representation of the petitioner has been rejected assigning cogent and valid reasons. In this regard, relevant extract of the impugned order is thus :
^^1- iatkc d`f"k fo'ofo|ky;] yqf/k;kuk esa fnukad 10-7-65 ls 3-7-71 rd dh x;h lsok& Jh pM " 418 (a), Registration of the public service or dismissal or removal from it for misconduct, insolvency in efficiency not due to age, or failure to pass a prescribed examination entails forfeiture of past service.
( b). Resignation of and appointment to take up another appointment, service in which counts, is not a resignation of the public service.
^^3- tc fdlh Lok;Rr'kklh fudk; ds fdlh deZpkjh dks dsUnzh; [email protected]; ljdkj ds v/khu Lfkk;h rkSj ij lafoyhu dj fn;k tkrk gS rks mlds lkeus nks fodYi jgsaxs vFkkZr~ ;k rks og Lok;Rr'kklh fudk; }kjk ns; va'knk;h Hkfo"; fuf/k izlqfo/kk;sa izkIr dj ysa vkSj ljdkj esa u;s fljs ls ukSdjh 'kq: djsa ;k va'knk;h Hkfo"; fuf/k esa fu;ksDr ds va'knku vkSj ml ij ns; C;kt lfgr] lEiw.kZ jkf'k jkT; ljdkj ds [kkrs esa tek dj nsa vkSj ljdkj ds v/khu rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ ds Hkhrj fn;k tk;sxkA ;fn fu/kkZfjr vof/k ds Hkhrj dksbZ fodYi ugha fn;k tkrk gS rks ;g le> fy;k tk;sxk fd deZpkjh us va'knk;h Hkfo"; fuf/[email protected] lkekU; Hkfo"; fuf/k izlqfo/kk;sa izkIr djus dk fodYi fn;k gSA ,d ckj fn;k x;k fodYi vfUre gksxkA** There is no averment in the writ petition or anything on record to show that petitioner complied with the conditions for payment of pension as enumerated in paragraph no. 3 of the Govt. Order quoted above. It therefore cannot be said that impugned order suffers from any illegality. No infirmity having been exhibited in the impugned order by the counsel for petitioner during course of the hearing, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Even if it is assumed that the benefit under the aforesaid Government Order is admissible in his case, even then the petitioner is required to comply with the conditions laid down therein within a period of one year. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy us that conditions enumerated in the Govt. Order as quoted above, were fulfilled by the petitioner as required.
Apart from what has been stated above, paragraph no. 361 of the C.S.R. Rules is also relevant, which provides as under :
"361. The service of an officer does not qualify for pension unless it conforms to the following three conditions :
(1)The service must be under Government.
(2) The employment must be substantive and permanent.
(3) The service must be paid by Government.
In the present case, since the petitioner had resigned from Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana and thereafter his employment at G.B. Pant University of Agriculture was not substantive and permanent but on contractual basis, coupled with the fact that both these services were not the service under the Government but the aforesaid Universities, submission of the counsel for petitioner for inclusion of aforesaid services for the purpose of fixation of his pension, cannot be accepted in view of aforesaid paragraph no. 361 of the C.S.R. Rules.
For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as claimed in the present petition. The writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dt/-12.3.2012 SNT/