V.K Bali, J.:— Nasib Singh, a retired Mali-cum-Beldar, through present petition filed by him under Artricle 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash order dated 16.3.1998, Annexure P-5, passed by the Director, Chhatbir Zoological Park to the extent it debars the petitioner to pension on the ground that his service is less than ten years.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined as Daily Wager Mali in Chhatbir Zoo in May, 1982. But for some notional breaks, he had uninterrupted service upto 1988 when he filed Civil Writ Petition No. 10111 of 1988 for regularisation of his services. The same was allowed by this Court on 15.9.1993 All those who had worked for five years prior to filing of Writ Petition, were ordered to be regularised and the case of others, i.e who had not put in, five years service, were to be considered for regularisation as per policy framed by the State. On 20.1.1995 the respondent-State issued instructions providing regularisation of daily Wagers who had completed ten years service as on 30.11.1994
3. It is significant to mention here that on 20.1.1995, when the aforesaid instructions came to be issued, concededly, petitioner had worked for a period of almost 13 years. It is further the case of petitioner that when the judgment of this Court dated 15.9.1993 was not being implemented, he filed a contempt petition in this Court wherein a direction was issued to the respondents on 8.8.1995 to do the needful within three weeks. Still, when the directions aforesaid were not complied with, petitioner was constrained to file fresh contempt petition and it is during the pendency of that contempt petition that petitioner was regularised in service vide order dated 8.2.1996 However, on attaining the age of 60 years, petitioner superannuated on 16.3.1998 When no post retiral benefits were given to the petitioner, he issued a legal notice on 4.6.1998 and prayed therein that his entire service right from 1982 to 1998 be deemed to be regular service as his adhoc service was followed by regularisation when his entreaties, followed by legal notice, referred to above, brought no tangible results, present petition was filed for post retiral benefits.
4. The matter has been contested by the respondents on the sole ground that the petitioner did not have ten years' service on the date of this retirement and was, thus, not entitled to grant of any pension. During the course of arguments, however, it could not be disputed that if a temporary or adhoc service is followed by regular service, the entire period of service is to count for the purposes of pension. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court for regularisation of his services by pleading that he had already put in five years service and the same was allowed on 15.9.1993 A right, thus, accrued to petitioner to be regularised in service on his rendering continuous service, even though adhoc or daily wager, for a period of five years and the said right was duly recognised in the writ filed by him. Even if one is to count service rendered by the petitioner from a date when petitioner completed five years service, even then by the time petitioner came to be superannuated, he had worked from more than ten years. Considering this matter from any angle, thus, the petitioner had put in more than ten years service. That being so, this petition is allowed and order, Annexure P-5, disentitling the petitioner pension on the ground that he had not put in ten years service is, thus, quashed. Conseuqnetly, a direction is issued to respondent No. 2 to reconsider the entitlement of petitioner for pension as if he had worked for more than ten years. Let this exercise be done as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months from the date a copy of this order is received by the said respondent. If favourable orders are passed, petitioner shall be made over the arrears of pension and other post retiral benefits, that may be admissible to him under the rules, within one month thereafter. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
5. At this stage it is brought to my notice that some benefits were given to the petitioner. Naturally, to the extent claim of the petitioner stands satisfied, nothing on that count shall be paid to him.
6. Order accordingly.