Mirza Zafar Begg v. Jamia Millia Islamia Through Its Registrar & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 31 Jan 2013 · 2013:DHC:496
Valmiki J. Mehta
WP(C) No.1902/2008
2013:DHC:496
administrative petition_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court held that short technical breaks in ad hoc service do not interrupt qualifying service for pension, entitling the petitioner to pension benefits from the start of his ad hoc employment.

Full Text
Translation output
WP(C) No.1902/2008 HIGH COURT OF DELHI W.P.(C) No.1902/2008 January 31, 2013 MIRZA ZAFAR BEGG ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Pragya, Advocate.
VERSUS
JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. A. Siddiqui, Advocate with Mr. Rohit Gandhi, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the relief of grant of pensionary benefits by including the period of initial employment as an ad hoc employee/Personal Assistant with the respondent No.1-University in March, 1988, instead of the subsequent date taken of 17.1.1995. It is not disputed that the petitioner did in fact join the services of respondent No.1 as Personal Assistant in March, 1988, and thereafter the petitioner’s services 2013:DHC:496 were regularized on the said post of Personal Assistant in the Department and Faculty of Engineering and Technology w.e.f 17.1.1995. The petitioner thereafter retired on 30.6.2004.

2. Ordinarily, entitlement to pension is after completion of ten years of service, and which in the present case if the petitioner is taken to have been appointed on 17.1.1995, cannot be said to be completed.

3. The petitioner however relies upon the clarification dated 11.6.2004 issued by the respondentNo.2/Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions. This circular provides that if there is only a technical break between different periods of ad hoc services, then, the total periods of the ad hoc services have to be counted as qualifying services alongwith the regular services for pension purposes. This letter dated 11.6.2004 reads as under:- “ 3rd Floor Lok Nayak Bhavan, New Delhi-110 003, 11th June, 2004. To Prof. Zahid H. Khan, Jamia Millia Islamia University, Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar Marg, New Delhi-110025 Subject: Relaxation of 3 days in minimum qualifying service for grant of pension or Counting of ad-hoc service as qualifying service for pension-Case of Shri M. Zafar Begg. ************************************************ Sir, I am directed to refer to Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) University’s letter No.2359(MZB)RO/Estt./2004 Dr.No.16 dated 8th June, 2004 on the subject cited above and to say that the minimum qualifying service required for grant of pension as provided in Rule 49(2)(b) is ten years. Under the provision of Rule 49(3) the above condition stand automatically relaxed by 3 months for rounding of 9 years 9 months qualifying service to 10 years. Further relaxation of 3 days to above condition is not possible. However, as far as clarification relating to technical breaks is concerned, it may be clarified here that technical break(s) of one or two days given due to administrative reasons between ad-hoc service or between ad-hoc and regular service, are not to be treated as interruption w.r.t. to condition (iv) below for the purpose of counting of ad-hoc service as qualifying service in continuation with regular service, for pension purpose subject to satisfaction of following conditions:

(i) The ad-hoc appointments are made/continued with the approval of the competent authority.

(ii) The ad-hoc appointees satisfy the educational and other essential qualifications prescribed for appointment on a regular basis. (iii)The ad-hoc appointees are allowed the same pay and allowance and other conditions as are applicable to those appointed on a regular basis and

(iv) The ad-hoc service is continuous and is followed without interruption by regular appointment (substantive or officiating or temporary).

2. The case of Shri M. Zafar Begg may be settled accordingly. Yours faithfully, (Geeta Ram) Director (PW)” (underlining is added)

4. The respondent No.1 though had filed a counter affidavit disputing in law the entitlement of the petitioner, however, the respondent No.1 has subsequently filed an affidavit dated 2.11.2012 giving the total period of ad hoc services alongwith artificial breaks, of the petitioner, and the details are as under:-

S. No. Nature of Appoint Period of Appointment/Ext. Date of break

1. Ad-hoc Four three months w.e.f. the date of joining i.e. 2.3.88 ---

2. Ad-hoc w.e.f. 3.6.88 to 2.9.88 or till regular selection is made whichever is earlier 02.06.1988

3. Ad-hoc w.e.f. 5.9.88 to 4.12.88 or till regular earlier 3 (Sat), 4(sun).9.1988

4. Ad-hoc w.e.f. 5.12.88 to 4.3.89 or till regular earlier Continued

5. Ad-hoc w.e.f. 8.3.89 to 7.9.89 or till regular earlier 5(sun), 6& 7 (H/B),3.1989

6. Ad-hoc w.e.f. 11.9.89 for a period of 180 days or till the selection on the post through S.C. whichever is earlier 8(H/B),9(Sat) & 10(sun).09.1988

6,593 characters total

7. Ad-hoc w.e.f. 14.3.90 for a period of 180 11,12 (H) & 13(B),3.1990

8. Ad-hoc w.e.f. 21.09.1990 for a period of 180 20.09.1990 (B)

9. Ad-hoc w.e.f. 21.3.1991 for a period of 180 20.03.1991(B)

10. Ad-hoc w.e.f. 18.09.1991 for a period of 180 17.09.1991(B)

11. Ad-hoc w.e.f. 17.03.1992 till the end of current academic session or till selection on the post through S.C. whichever is earlier. (Academic Session ended on 15.5.1992) 16.03.1992 (B)

12. Ad-hoc w.e.f. 19.5.1992 for a period of 180 16(Sat), 17(Sun) & 18.5.1992(B)

13. Ad-hoc w.e.f. the date of joining for a period of 180 days or till selection on the post through S.C. or till further order whichever is earlier (date of joining 09.10.1992) Continued

14. Ad-hoc w.e.f. 8.4.1993 for a period of 180 7.4.1993(B)

15. Ad-hoc w.e.f. 6.10.1993 for a period of 180 days or till appointment on the post 5.10.1993(B)

16. Ad-hoc w.e.f. 5.4.1994 for a period of 180 4.4.1994(B)

17. Ad-hoc w.e.f. 4.10.1994 for a period of 180 through S.C. or till further order whichever is earlier 2(sun) 3 (B/H).10.1994

18. Probation w.e.f. 17.01.1995 This affidavit was filed pursuant to the directions of the Court.

5. In view of the categorical language of the circular dated 11.6.2004 of the respondent No.2, and the statement of facts mentioned in the affidavit dated 2.11.2012 filed by the respondent No.1 giving the service details of the petitioner with respect to the total periods of ad hoc appointment, it is clear that the petitioner was only given artificial breaks for his not continuing in service. Therefore, the circular dated 11.6.2004 of the respondent No.2 indubitably applies.

6. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The petitioner be granted pensionary benefits taking his appointment w.e.f March, 1988 and the date of his retirement as 30.6.2004. The necessary pensionary benefits be now given to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. The petitioner will be entitled to interest on arrears payable at 9% per annum simple from the date of filing of this petition till the date of payment. In case, the pensionary benefits are not given within three months from today, thereafter, the respondent No.1 will be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum. No costs.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J JANUARY 31, 2013 Ne